Assembly Business

Speaker's Office: Allocation of Functions

Mitchel McLaughlin: Before we proceed with business, I wish to inform the House that the Deputy Speakers and I met this morning. I have agreed the allocation of functions with my colleagues in accordance with Standing Order 4(7) for this week.

Speaker's Ruling: Jim Allister

Mitchel McLaughlin: I return to the matter raised by Mr Allister last Tuesday, 7 October, when he queried how Deputy Speaker Beggs had dealt with his question during a ministerial statement. I have now considered the Hansard report of last Tuesday's plenary sitting and reviewed the relevant Standing Orders, Speaker's rulings and the 'Assembly Companion'. I have reached a conclusion on my response, which I discussed with the other Deputy Speakers this morning. We agreed that I would deal with it today. The Member has been informed — I note his presence — that I would respond to him at this stage in proceedings today so that he could make himself available to hear it.
Standing Orders expressly state that the Speaker's decision on all questions of procedure is final and that that authority applies equally to Deputy Speakers. As the Member well knows, that means that, regardless of the circumstances of a ruling and whether a Member agrees with it, he or she is obliged to abide by it. Last Tuesday, therefore, the Member was clearly in breach of Standing Orders when he challenged the Deputy Speaker after the ministerial statement and when he later questioned the consistency with which the Deputy Speaker had chaired that item of business.
Furthermore, the Member also suggested that the Deputy Speaker had acted at the behest of a Clerk. Mr Spratt raised a point of order about that, and he was indeed correct that that was a breach of the conventions of the House. Speaker's rulings make it very clear that staff are there to assist Members in the performance of their duties. The Deputy Speakers and I are grateful for the advice and assistance we receive from the Clerks, but the House, and the Member in particular, should be in no doubt that we are entirely responsible for the conduct of business.
Decisions rest with the Chair, and I reiterate that it is not in order to challenge those decisions.
The Member concerned has had several warnings on previous occasions, so while I would welcome an apology to the House, I am not living in the expectation of that being forthcoming. In accordance with Speaker's rulings, I therefore inform the Member that his speaking opportunities will be restricted from now until 10 November 2014.
I know that the Member will try to spin this, but let me be clear: this is all about his behaviour towards the Chair and towards Deputy Speaker Beggs last week. It was amongst the worst that we have seen in the Assembly.
The Deputy Speakers and I are determined that the authority of the Chair will be upheld and that such blatant breaches of Standing Orders, Speaker's rulings and Assembly conventions cannot be allowed to pass without consequence. Let us move on.

Jim Allister: On a point of order.

Mitchel McLaughlin: I have informed the House —

Jim Allister: On a point of order.

Mitchel McLaughlin: I have informed the House that you will not be allowed to speak unless you wish to apologise. I ask you to resume your seat.

Jim Allister: I wish to make a relevant comment —

Mitchel McLaughlin: I am not inviting you to make any comment.

Jim Allister: — which will address the issue.

Mitchel McLaughlin: I am asking you whether you wish to take the opportunity to make an apology. If not, resume your seat immediately.

Jim Allister: I wish to address the issue, which may well encompass what you have in mind.

Mitchel McLaughlin: Let us move on. That does not satisfy me. Let us move on.

Jim Allister: I think that we will see more of a kangaroo court tonight on 'Spotlight'. Are you permitting me to make a comment?

Mitchel McLaughlin: I am not.

Ministerial Statement

October Monitoring Round/Paediatric Congenital Cardiac Services: Outcome

Jim Wells: I am very glad to have this opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly on two hugely important matters for health and social care services: first, the outcome of the October monitoring round for my Department, and, secondly, the report of the international working group on paediatric congenital cardiac services (PCCS).
Since I have been in office, there have been a number of challenging issues to address. This statement deals with two of them: the financial position for 2014-15 and paediatric congenital cardiac services. 
As the Assembly is aware, the Executive reached agreement last Thursday on the October monitoring round for 2014-15. As part of that agreement, my Department received an additional allocation of £60 million. That was on top of the conditional allocation of £20 million, which was from the June monitoring round.
Whilst £80 million is most welcome, there are still consequences for the provision of health and social care services as it is simply not possible to maintain current levels of service provision in the absence of all the required levels of funding. This statement updates the House on the implications of the October monitoring round for my Department.
The Executive, the Health Committee and the Assembly are well aware that my Department has experienced significant financial pressures, notably since autumn 2013, and these have yet to be resolved. The pressures are in a wide range of areas, including children's services, the quality and safety of services, elective care and unscheduled care, and they reflect the increasing demands on health and social care and the technological and treatment advances that can now be provided. These unfunded pressures are despite my Department having delivered efficiency savings of £490 million over the last three years. Indeed, a further £170 million is planned for delivery in the current financial year.
My Department made significant monitoring round bids in June and October 2014. The Executive and the Health Committee were advised that additional funding needed to be found to avoid the worst consequences for patients and clients in Northern Ireland. I very much welcome the £80 million that is being made available. It is a significant investment, but it is disappointing that £87 million is being handed back to the Treasury for welfare reform penalties rather than being invested in local health and social care. This approach means that I will not be able to take forward many of the plans that would have improved health and social care services and the outcomes for the Northern Ireland population.
Indeed, if we had obtained that £87 million, we would be extremely happy. Even our share of that £87 million would have been very welcome.
I assure you that my priority is that the services that we provide must be safe and effective for all the patients that they serve. Unfortunately, that may mean that some services will need to be reviewed, and that, in some cases, opening times may need to be restricted. Indeed, some services may need to cease altogether, based, of course, on the views of clinicians on safe staffing levels. However, with the additional funding that is being made available, I expect trusts to avoid the worst of these consequences and to minimise any reductions in the use of agency and bank nurses, social workers and locum doctors. 
Whilst some further investment in elective care will be possible, this will be much less than the full extent of the pressure, and that means that the current restrictions on the use of the independent sector will have to continue. I assure you, however, that those patients with existing appointments in the independent sector will be treated. All other patients will be treated within the local trusts in priority order, but, inevitably, this increased pressure on trusts will lead to longer waiting times.
The extent of the pressure on my budget means that I will have no option but to impose further cuts in other areas, including departmental arm's-length bodies, my Department's administrative costs and pharmacy spending. There has been further discussion in recent days about restraint on wider public sector pay. I believe that this is a necessary measure, given the extent of financial constraints, but it should be applied consistently across all areas of the public sector, and not restricted to one element of the workforce. I strongly advocate that any pay restraint imposed on health and social care workers should be consistent with those applied in other public sector organisations.
On the more positive side, the additional £80 million will fund a wide range of existing expenditure commitments and allow further new investments to proceed. I will allocate the funding to those areas that minimise the worst of the consequences on front line patient care, thus addressing the serious concerns previously raised by the Chief Medical Officer. I particularly want to ensure that unscheduled care and patient flow is supported to reduce the number of breaches of the emergency department waiting time standards, including through the challenging winter period. This includes ensuring that existing domiciliary care packages are maintained and that some new care packages can also be provided. 
I also intend to provide support to enable National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) drugs and treatments to continue to be provided, which will mean that patients can benefit from specialist treatments without considerable extension of waiting times. I know that the Chair of the Health Committee will welcome the next part of my statement: investment will be made in the Altnagelvin radiotherapy centre during 2014-15 so that it can be opened as intended in 2016. The funds will also mean that the cath labs in Altnagelvin can continue to operate a vital 24/7 service as planned, and that some further support can be provided to the voluntary and community sector and the Family Fund. 
For mental health and learning disability, 116 clients will benefit from being resettled into the community, and hence be able to access the facilities that we have planned for them. I am also able to provide further support to drive forward important elements of reform under the Transforming Your Care agenda, allowing integrated care partnerships to make further progress and ensuring that there is a greater equity in reformed services across Northern Ireland. 
In the coming weeks, specific allocations to front line services will be made to the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB), the Public Health Agency (PHA) and the trusts to reflect my ministerial priorities and the pressures being experienced in local areas. I will then expect the trusts to break even and be accountable to me, the Assembly and the public for the performance standards that I set.
I will turn now to another very important issue, that of paediatric congenital cardiac services. As Members will recall, on 9 December 2013, my predecessor, Mr Poots, made a statement to the Assembly announcing that, in conjunction with his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, he had appointed a team of international clinicians to provide an assessment of the optimal model for a cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology service for congenital heart disease to meet the respective needs of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The international working group (IWG) was chaired by Dr John Mayer, Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School and senior associate in cardiac surgery at Boston Children's Hospital.
The members of the group were Dr Adrian Moran, the associate clinical professor at Tufts medical school and chief of paediatric cardiology at Maine Medical Center, USA; and Dr John Sinclair, consultant paediatric cardiac anaesthetist at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Glasgow. Nursing expertise and advice was provided to the international working group by Dr Patricia Hickey, the vice president of cardiovascular and critical care services and associate chief nursing officer at Boston Children's Hospital.
In my written statement to the Assembly on 24 September, I announced that the international working group had presented its report to the two Departments, that both were considering the report and that I would subsequently announce our response to the international working group's full recommendations together with the Minister for Health in the Republic Of Ireland, Leo Varadkar TD. Today, I am following up on that commitment. Members may ask why there was a delay between receiving the report and it being published. It is being published as I speak. The reason for that is that, because it was a joint report commissioned by the two Ministers, we had to seek the agreement of our colleagues in the Irish Republic before we could release it.
In reaching this decision, I have given careful consideration to the report in the wider context of the various reviews and assessments that have been carried out in recent years relating to the paediatric congenital cardiac surgery service in Northern Ireland. I have given specific consideration to the report and recommendations of the Health and Social Care Board's PCCS working group of April 2013; the views of the parents' groups, which I very much welcome, such as Heartbeat Northern Ireland, which supported those recommendations; the views of the Children's Heartbeat Trust as appended to the report and recommendations of the Health and Social Care Board's PCCS working group; and the proposed model for the future delivery of paediatric cardiac services that was submitted to my Department by Belfast Trust cardiologists in March 2013. 
I have met many of the groups involved in the debate since my appointment. It was in that context that my predecessor and Minister Varadkar's predecessor commissioned the international working group to assess, in both jurisdictions and on the basis of a single service, the current and projected need for the service; the way in which the service is currently delivered; and the possibilities for configuring the service that could best meet the needs of the overall patient population.
All the recommendations in the report are important. Indeed, the international working group has highlighted their interdependent nature. I know that the question of whether surgery would remain in Belfast was of major concern to the patients' families and the Assembly in particular. Like my predecessor, I wanted to end the uncertainty on that specific issue. It was for that reason that I announced on 24 September that the report had recommended that all paediatric cardiac surgery and paediatric interventional cardiology should cease to be delivered in Belfast. That is one of 14 recommendations that, together, make up the working group's proposed model for delivering that vitally important service. 
The service is important not just for now but for current and future generations of people born with heart conditions, many of whom live a full and normal life into adulthood thanks to the advances made in that medical specialty in recent decades. It is the fourth successive report to recommend that paediatric cardiac surgery should cease in Belfast. The first was the Sir Ian Kennedy review, which was published in August 2012. The second was the Health and Social Care Board's PCCS working group review in April 2013, which I mentioned earlier. The third was the Chief Medical Officer's report to my predecessor on the evidential base and clinical practice aspects of congenital cardiac services, which was published in August 2013. The weight of evidence based on clinical assessment is clear. In the interests of patient safety and to ensure the future provision of a safe, effective and sustainable service for those vulnerable patients and their families, it is my responsibility as Health Minister to act on that evidence.
As I said, the international working group's report makes a total of 14 recommendations that are interdependent. The view of the international working group is that the recommendations cannot be easily separated without threatening the viability of the proposed solution. The proposal that paediatric cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology should be provided by a single children's heart centre in Dublin is one of a series of interdependent recommendations that make up the IWG's proposed model.
From the outset, that work has had the optimisation of the service as its main focus. The recommendation should therefore not be viewed in isolation.
I believe that the overall package addresses the range of serious concerns that patients' families, patients' groups and clinicians have made known following previous reviews. They have presented questions and challenges and are to be commended for doing so. In turn, the international working group has taken those views on board, and the Chief Medical Officer has confirmed his view that the proposed approach offers the best opportunity to provide that important service in an appropriate, safe and deliverable framework.
Like some of the patients’ families and their representatives, I, too, had an opportunity to meet Dr Mayer and the international working group when they visited Northern Ireland in April 2014. Of course, that was in my previous capacity as Deputy Chair of the Health Committee. In doing that, I was impressed by their clear desire to hear about the experiences of the families and listen to their concerns and their commitment to addressing those within their recommendations. Indeed, the report speaks of the willingness of the international working group, observed during their visits in both jurisdictions at all levels, to have a solution at all levels based on political, clinical, policy/management and parental views. 
I am satisfied that the international working group has fulfilled its terms of reference, and that view is shared by my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, Minister Leo Varadkar.
The proposed solution provides for a surgical service that would see children treated in accordance with the highest standards of safety. In addition, it points to opportunities for: enhancing the support we make available to their families; involving their representatives, as well as clinicians, in governance arrangements; improving communication and the flow of information between clinical teams in Dublin and Belfast; and further improving the transport service that we provide to get patients to where they need to be as quickly and safely as possible. 
Time will not permit that I go through the detail of each and every recommendation with you, but I urge Members to study the report that has just been released. I know that Members will want to take time to read the report for themselves, and it is now available on the departmental website, but I want to draw your attention to some aspects and themes arising from the recommendations. 
Recommendation 7 of the international working group's report proposes the key change to the current service in Northern Ireland — that those arrangements should be brought to a conclusion and that all paediatric cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology should take place in Dublin, in Our Lady's Hospital in Crumlin.
One of the major concerns expressed in the wake of the previous report was that cessation of surgery would impact on the ability to maintain specialist medical skills in Belfast, which, in turn, would restrict the service available. However, I am reassured to note that the maintenance of those life-saving skills is central to recommendation 4, which advocates the flow of nursing and physician personnel between the two jurisdictions. It is a two-way street, as it draws on the respective strengths of both jurisdictions to form one service — effectively one team serving one patient population. It details how Belfast-based paediatric cardiologists and paediatric cardiac anaesthetists should participate regularly in procedures with colleagues in Dublin, which will ensure that their skills are maintained. 
The report also seeks to improve the experience and the involvement of families and their representatives in the proposed model. I have greatly valued the opportunity to meet the parents and family representatives. There are some very caring couples who are doing so much to look after very ill children. They are to be admired and supported. In that regard, recommendation 2 advocates the establishment of a family advisory group with representatives from both jurisdictions to provide direct input to a single governance vehicle, which I will say more about shortly. The family advisory group’s aim will be to give a voice to families and also to serve as a means of providing feedback about how the system is functioning.
Family concerns are also addressed in two further recommendations. Recommendation 8 seeks enhanced patient and family services in Dublin for all patients and families who do not reside in the Dublin metropolitan area. That would include assistance with travel, lodging, meals and other practical matters. Indeed, many parents have made these points to me about the practical difficulties of dealing not only with a very ill child but with accommodation, food, travel arrangements etc. Recommendation 9 proposes the integration of the activities of clinical nurse specialists and advanced practice nurses in Belfast and Dublin to provide patient and family support, to manage the transfers of patients between Belfast and Dublin and to co-manage clinics. 
This is an aspect of the model recommended by the IWG that I particularly approve of in that it provides families with full participation through their representatives on both the governance committee and the proposed family liaison service. If this is implemented, it will empower families in a way that has not happened before; providing them with an opportunity to ensure that their concerns, for instance, about the provision of accommodation and reimbursement of expenses are fully addressed.
There are four recommendations on the specifics of arrangements to ensure integration of services through IT links and case conferences. Those are recommendations 3, 6, 12 and 13.
The IWG has recognised the importance of effective emergency transport arrangements to make an all-island service function effectively, and indeed it met transport providers during its visit in April. Recommendation 10 calls for quarterly meetings between the paediatric and neonatal patient transport services in the two jurisdictions. This aims to facilitate and further strengthen safe transfers between outlying areas and the centres in Dublin and Belfast, as well as transfers between the centres. Recommendation 11 recognises the need for the Republic of Ireland to continue to upgrade its paediatric transport services and suggests building on the expert inpatient extracorporeal life support (ECLS) services existing in Dublin to form a mobile ECLS service.
Finally, recommendation 1, which effectively ties the whole model together, relates to the establishment of a single governance committee, composed of patient representatives, senior clinicians including surgeons, cardiologists and nurses, and the Chief Medical Officers and commissioners from both jurisdictions, to address all operational and policy issues. It would oversee the operations of the personnel, facilities and institutions involved in the care of patients of all ages with congenital heart disease. Its scope, as envisaged by the IWG, would be to effectively influence the deployment of capital and personnel resources for the management of patients with congenital heart disease in both jurisdictions. Terms of reference would be agreed by the respective health authorities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. 
There are issues for us to work through regarding the practicalities of this recommendation as it has been described in the report. However, we believe that there may be an alternative joint governance vehicle to the IWG model, which would be better suited to our separate clinical and statutory structures but would maintain the principle of placing clinicians and families at the forefront of influencing decisions with real input from patient representatives. My Department and the Department of Health in the Republic of Ireland have reached broad consensus that this vehicle would operate effectively as a clinical network and still deliver the aim of the recommendation.
The report therefore gives us an achievable model. It gives us an indication of how to get there, but it does not prescribe the detail about exactly how the transfer should occur, when surgery in Belfast should cease, how Dublin's capacity can be increased or what happens with patients in the meantime. This is for me to agree with Minister Varadkar, and our Departments are working together closely to establish how we can build on the willingness that the IWG encountered during its visit and to plan how to make the model a reality.
Minister Varadkar and I have both agreed to accept all the IWG's recommendations and are committed to their full implementation, subject to the outcome of any necessary consultation. We are issuing a joint policy statement to that effect today. I will say something further about the consultation in a moment.
In implementing this new model, there will be a requirement to plan and take it forward in stages, as some elements will take longer to achieve than others. I know that the immediate concern of patients, their families and their clinicians is around what happens now and in the short term. I can assure you that my Department has been working closely with the Health and Social Care Board, the Belfast Trust and colleagues in the Republic of Ireland to understand what a pathway to implementation may look like, what obstacles would need to be addressed and what investment may be needed along the way. In the meantime, and central to that, of course, is ensuring that, throughout the interim period, we have arrangements in place to ensure that patients receive the best possible care.
First and foremost, we will need to ensure that a suitable, safe alternative is in place immediately after elective surgery and interventional cardiology ceases in Belfast. Currently, a very small number of paediatric cardiac operations and interventional procedures take place in Belfast. Those that do are planned, involve less complex procedures, exclude very young children and are carried out by surgeons who are based in Dublin and travel to Belfast once or twice a month. In highlighting that, I want to put on record my sincere gratitude for their continued willingness to do so over a prolonged and uncertain period. That has been hugely appreciated, not least by the families of the patients they treated. 
All other elective surgery is carried out in heart centres in England, namely in London and Birmingham, whilst provision also exists for patients requiring emergency treatment to be treated in Dublin or in specialist centres in England. Again, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the clinical teams in Birmingham and the Evelina children's heart hospital for the service that they provide to Northern Ireland children and their families. 
 
With regard to children requiring emergency surgery, I know that Members have expressed concern about the future arrangements for diagnosis of children born in the north or north-west of Northern Ireland, where transfer times to Dublin take considerably longer. Ultimately, it will be for the clinicians to decide whether a child should be transferred directly to Our Lady's Children's Hospital in Crumlin or whether that child should be transferred directly from Belfast to England. A key aspect of the single-service model is that, when it is fully implemented, it will have the capacity to deal with all emergency cases. However, it will be some 18 months before the model is fully in place and operating to capacity. 
 
The current arrangements for emergency transfers have recently been the subject of review. There have been two cases recently, one in August and one in September, where it has not been possible for Our Lady's Children's Hospital in Crumlin to accommodate cases for emergency surgery. The HSCB is engaged with the Health Service Executive in the Republic of Ireland about this, to ensure that any additional steps that are necessary to ensure the robustness of the current arrangements are put in place. That only serves to emphasise the critical nature of ensuring safe, effective and robust services in the long term, which I am confident the proposed model will achieve. 
In the short term, it will be important to ensure a well-managed extension of the current service level agreements (SLAs) between the two providers in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and, of course, England, where appropriate. It is most important that the existing SLAs continue in operation, augmented as necessary, to enhance the current arrangements and are quickly replaced by the single-service model proposed by the international working group. Further implementation will be on the basis of the outcome of any necessary consultation and by early agreement on the resource timelines and service integration requirements. That will be driven and carried out within appropriate structured project management arrangements with all the necessary steering, oversight and consultation structures required, in line with the international working group's recommendations. In that respect, Leo Varadkar and me have instructed our officials to take forward preparation work with immediate effect, with a view to having a clear action plan agreed and in place by the end of December 2014. 
The current arrangements under the SLAs will remain in place until December 2014. Thus, the immediate impact of the removal of surgery from Belfast will be that, from January 2015, more children from Northern Ireland are likely to receive elective surgery at specialist centres in England, as required, until the appropriate capacity is in place in Crumlin. Interventional cardiology will cease in Belfast from April 2015, and Northern Ireland children will then receive that service in Crumlin, delivered by Belfast cardiologists working as part of the integrated team in Dublin. 
On 25 April 2013, my predecessor acknowledged receipt of the report of the HSCB's PCCS working group, and said that he wished to consider its recommendations before reaching a decision. Subsequent to that, he and his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland commissioned the IWG to carry out its assessment, which I have published today. I, therefore, wish to advise the Assembly that, in light of the IWG’s recommended model, I propose to recommend the PCCS working group's proposals on the following basis: that consideration will be given to the implementation of the recommended service specification in the context of the IWG’s model; and that the working group’s preferred way forward for the future configuration of the service for Northern Ireland should be taken account of in the implementation of the IWG’s model . It is notable that both groups reached the same conclusion, which is that surgery should cease in Belfast and be carried out in Dublin. 
The HSCB will bring forward detailed investment proposals to further develop a cardiology centre of excellence at Belfast Trust and to strengthen the Northern Ireland network. In that regard, I will ask the HSCB to work closely with the Belfast Trust’s management and cardiologists in developing the investment proposals. I wish to place on record my thanks to the board, the Public Health Agency and the working group for the extensive work that they completed in providing advice to my predecessor.
Members will recall that my predecessor announced the Belfast Trust’s proposals to consider the possible transfer of children’s cardiac surgery from the Royal Victoria Hospital to the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, subject to the completion of a risk assessment, and has concluded that such a transfer would be desirable. As paediatric surgical services are due to end on 31 December 2014, I have asked my officials to write to the HSCB for an updated position on the proposed transfer as this would now appear to be unnecessary.
I intend to announce details of the public consultation on the recommended model in the near future. I am making the report available on the departmental website today, and I have outlined in the statement the link to it on the Department's website. I urge all concerned to consult it, as it is now live. 
In the meantime, I have instructed my Department to work with commissioners and providers to immediately plan for the implementation of the service model recommended by the IWG. I will await the outcome of the consultation before making my final decision on whether to implement the model. My decision to proceed with the planning is in keeping with the principle that precautions should be applied, given the vulnerability of the sustainability of the service in the Belfast Trust. 
In conclusion, the proposed model is absolutely focused on patient safety and the effective delivery of care. My predecessor and I have been motivated throughout this work by the desire to provide the best possible standard of care for children in Northern Ireland who suffer from congenital heart disease and their families. The simple reality is that we cannot reach these standards alone. That is the clear message from the work of IWG, and I cannot and will not ignore their expertise and experience in reaching that view. Patient safety is central to this decision. I commend the work of the IWG to the Assembly.

Maeve McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his statement. As this is his first ministerial statement, I congratulate him on his elevation. It was remiss of me not to do it yesterday.
There is a lot of detail in the statement, but two important issues are covered, specifically in relation to the breakdown of the budget and the very welcome news around the radiotherapy unit and the cath lab. I am delighted that that is planned. Has DFP put any conditions or restrictions on how the £80 million will be spent, or will priority be at the Minister's discretion? Can I confirm how much of it will be allocated towards public health, given the policy direction on early intervention and prevention?
Moving on to children's heart services, what I am hearing today is a shift from the hub-and-spoke model to an all-Ireland single heart centre based in Dublin. Can I confirm that the hub-and-spoke model is now not in place and that it is a single centre? You said in your statement that the overall package addresses the range of serious concerns with patients' families. How will that take place? Can we have more detail on that?
Your statement specifically suggests that it does not prescribe the detail of how exactly the transfer would occur, when surgery in Belfast would cease, how Dublin's capacity can be increased and what happens with patients in the meantime. What assurances can the Minister give, given that there will be a consultation period?

Jim Wells: I thank the Chair of the Committee for going easy on me with questions on my first oral statement. There are so many issues to be dealt with. This will be quite complex because some Members will ask questions on budgets, others will ask about cardiology, and some will mix the two.
First, on the budgetary issue, there are no restrictions on the Department in how we allocate the £80 million additional funding. There are, of course, conditions on the £20 million that was allocated in the June monitoring round. As the honourable Member knows, there are quite strong caveats in the mechanism that led to the release of the £80 million, but that is being dealt with by the Executive and DFP.
As I said to her before, £80 million is not enough for us to meet the widely recognised needs that have emerged in health and social care in Northern Ireland. So, between the board, the DHSSPS finance staff, the Public Health Agency etc, we will sit down to prioritise where we need to spend this money. It is no secret that all five trusts are under considerable pressure at the moment and have exceeded their budgets. We will have to look at that situation and bring it into some form of balance.
The only real specific that I can outline — the Chair and other Members for Londonderry have written to me about the issue on many occasions — is that the Altnagelvin facility will go ahead as planned. I know that that will be welcomed by her community and all those in Northern Ireland, Donegal etc who will benefit from that. I am relieved that we have at least been able to deal with that issue.
The hub-and-spoke model was considered before the international working group's report that issued today. I cannot, under any circumstances, ignore the fact that we now have four separate reports, all written by highly acclaimed and knowledgeable experts, that point in the one direction. It would be negligent of me, and I would be ignoring the interests of the patients, if I ignored what those reports say. We will go to a central model, but the Clark clinic will remain open, and services will still be delivered there. However, serious interventions will be dealt with by Dublin or, if they are extremely complex, by Birmingham or London. So we are moving towards a centralised model.
You asked for timelines. We reckon that it will take 18 months to get this all in motion. I can tell you that there is great goodwill from the HSE in Dublin, and we are also committed to it. I regard it as a priority that I will meet Leo Varadkar within the next few weeks so that we can discuss this very carefully.
I emphasise that the £80 million includes the £20 million that came from the June monitoring round, which has some conditions attached to it. It is conditional on assurances of steps to be taken to break even and live within our budget. I can tell you that it is an extraordinarily challenging target.

Paula Bradley: I also thank the Minister for his very comprehensive statement. Like the Minister and, I imagine, most Health Committee members, I have met the parents and parent representative groups concerned with paediatric congenital heart services. The statement refers to the family advisory group and the inclusion of parents and parent representatives in decision-making. What specifically does the Minister see as the role of the parents and parent representative groups in the implementation of the new model?

Jim Wells: I apologise to the Chair, as she raised a similar point about the involvement of the parents. My door is always open to the parents. Indeed, shortly after my appointment, I attended a fundraising event in Banbridge, where I met many of the parents. We have met various groups. I spent most of yesterday dealing with the concerns of parents. I also greatly value the input of Mr Swann, who has a very clearly defined personal experience of the issue. 
Through the proposed model, we are determined that family representatives will have a voice on the governance vehicle and the family advisory group. We are serious about that because I realise that, for many parents, this is a very difficult decision and a bitter pill to swallow. I accept that. We are determined to make the practical realities of attending Crumlin as simplified, efficient and caring as possible for parents who already have the huge burden of looking after a terribly ill child. Therefore, the groups established under the IWG report are designed to give those parents the optimal input. Leo Varadkar and I will listen very carefully to parents' recommendations through those groups. Already, the parents have raised with me some very practical difficulties. They have, for instance, to wait for three months before being reimbursed for the expense of going to Dublin or England. There must be procedures that can be established to ensure that that does not happen. A small issue, but certainly an issue if you are a young person, is the lack of Wi-Fi availability after a certain time of night for children undergoing cardiology services in the Royal. That is a big issue to a young person or a teenager, and we will have to look at that. 
We will do everything we can to facilitate the parents and families in this situation because we know how difficult it will be to ask them to travel to Dublin when they have been used to using the Clark clinic.

Fearghal McKinney: I thank the Minister for his statement. I congratulate the international working group for the work that it has done. We welcome this, particularly the joint nature of the discussions. Minister, you made the statement, but I think it only appropriate that we from the SDLP congratulate your predecessor, Mr Poots, on his sterling work in furthering this project. 
It throws up some questions, as you outlined. In your previous answer, you touched on the parents. Would it be appropriate for recommendation 1 to come ahead of the consultation to allow the immediate establishment of that working group so that parents, clinicians and all the rest of them can involve themselves in early discussion?
You talked about the economics earlier. Can the Minister reflect on whether the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS) would make a substantial difference to the actual pharmacy spend? In other words, does he accept the notion that embracing the scheme would mean a zero rise in the pharmacy bill?

Jim Wells: First, I will deal with Mr McKinney's first point. As he knows, we have announced a review of the individual funding request (IFR) system. We believe that the report is due back on my desk by the end of November. It will deal with the exceptional holiday criteria for when clinicians ask for specific drugs. Before we go any further, it is important that we look at that. It is only six weeks away and may deal with some of the problems that he and many other Members have with the present situation regarding the 40 cancer drugs. I cannot pre-empt what the review will say, but, given the very short time span, I think that we should look at it before we revisit the model that he outlined.
The Member mentioned moving ahead during the consultation period. I think that he will understand that we are bound by certain protocols. If you announce a policy decision, you have to allow time for people to make their views on it known. However, that does not preclude us going ahead and preparing the way. My understanding is that officials are already meeting to discuss the suggestion that he made. Provided that that can be done in a way that keeps it watertight, from a legal point of view, I do not see any problems with it. Equally, there may well be people who will read the report today and find something that they wish to point out to us or something that they have observations on. Therefore, to be absolutely watertight, we have to ensure that we have 12 weeks of consultation, or whatever period is deemed necessary.

Joanne Dobson: I thank the Minister for his statement and congratulate him on his elevation to Minister. I look forward to working with him. I also look forward, Minister, to hearing more from you at this evening's Adjournment debate. Given the timing of the statement, I should, perhaps, be trying to secure more Adjournment debates. 
You mentioned the north-west, which is the furthest away, and we need to ensure the early diagnosis of those vulnerable children. Will you outline what infrastructure will be put in place?
You mentioned the parents, who we all work very closely with. How do you plan to address their very real fears and the concerns of the local families who you have met? Words and promises simply are not enough.

Jim Wells: First, the wishes and views of the parents in Northern Ireland will have exactly the same weight as the wishes of the parents from the Irish Republic. This is meant to be a cooperative model, which will mean that any concerns that they have will be directed to the clinicians, to those in Dublin in Our Lady's and to the relevant Departments. So, I see this as an exciting model that will mean that their views will be at the core of this new arrangement. 
Also, I know that she perhaps is quite annoyed about the fact that this statement was made on the morning of her Adjournment debate on the same issue as far as Upper Bann patients are concerned. There was no attempt to head her off at the pass. What simply happened was that the timing was such that an agreement was made with the authorities in the Irish Republic that we would jointly publish this report today. We will address tonight the specific issues that she will undoubtedly raise of behalf of her constituents, but it was just the way that it happened, and there is no cunning plan, as it were, to deal with that. I am quite happy to address her concerns tonight, but, of course, she will have to accept that there will be a huge degree of overlap because the arrangements that we outlined this morning obviously apply in their entirety to patients coming from Upper Bann, as they do for all of Northern Ireland.

Kieran McCarthy: Like others, I welcome the Minister's first statement to the Assembly. First, I have to express my sadness that we are losing such a service providing cardiac surgery from Belfast City Hospital. That having been said, at least we are having a service on the island of Ireland, which is preferable to having to travel across the water. From experience, parents tell me that they would rather be in this island.
My main question is on the financial mess that our health service is in at this time and has been in for some time. I remind the new Minister that the Finance Minister accused the former Health Minister of mismanagement of the budget. That is a very serious accusation, and it seems to be that that is where the mess that we are in is at now. The threat to the quality and safety of our services cannot be underestimated. Can the Minister tell the Assembly whether that mismanagement by the former Minister on the budget has been identified? If it has, can he tell the Assembly what is being done and where to make sure that it will not continue? And can he —

Mitchel McLaughlin: Can you just come to your point?

Kieran McCarthy: Can the Minister come back to the Assembly and tell us that the mismanagement has been identified and rectified?

Jim Wells: As the honourable Member will be aware because he sat on the Health Committee at the time, the previous Minister Mr McGimpsey predicted that there were would be 4,000 compulsory redundancies resulting from the CSR when the DUP and Mr Poots took over. That has not happened. There have been no compulsory redundancies whatsoever, and, indeed, Mr Poots took on an extra 500 nurses. We are about to take on 61 health visitors, and we have increased the number of consultants and doctors. 
So, the overspend that he is referring to was a mere £13 million, which is 0·3% of the overall budget. The reason for that is that the previous Minister decided to continue with elective surgery so that people who were in misery and having very difficult issues with hips, knees etc got the treatment that they deserved. That was quite easily dealt with, but what he has to accept is that, last autumn, after having managed to achieve £490 million worth of savings in the budget through better and more efficient uses of the resources, there was a huge surge in demand that occurred in autumn 2013 and which is still with us. That is the problem. It is not a misallocation of resources but is simply that demand has risen dramatically. As he knows, demand is rising by 6% and resources are rising by 2%. Inevitably, something was going to give, and it gave, as it were, in October and November 2013. So it is not a case of mismanagement, it is simply the case that we had many more people demanding our services, and we had a restricted budget to meet that.

Kieran McCarthy: The Finance Minister thinks —

Mitchel McLaughlin: Order.

Jimmy Spratt: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his appointment and thank him for his statement this morning. As he and others in the House are aware, I am journeying with cancer at the moment. On behalf of those who journey with me and, indeed, the excellent clinicians who deal with cancer services throughout Northern Ireland, I ask the Minister what cancer services he will be able to introduce this year.

Jim Wells: First, we wish the Member for South Belfast all the best and admire his courage in being so open about having cancer. That has been extremely helpful.
As you know, there are new services planned for oncology in Northern Ireland. The acute oncology services that we will introduce in February 2015 will require 30 programmed activities (PAs) of consultant time to establish quality services for patients with complications from cancer or cancer treatment, patients with advanced cancer or those admitted to hospital with a newly diagnosed cancer. That will assist the implementation of NICE guidance and guidance on metastatic malignant diseases of an unknown primary origin. Excuse the complicated language. From 2015, 31 PAs of consultant time are required to ensure effective service delivery, resilience and sustainability.
I think that we have a lot to be proud of in cancer services in Northern Ireland. For the first time this year, we can say that more people with a cancer diagnosis will be alive in five years' time than will have passed on. We have crossed that Rubicon and passed that very important line in the sand, where we are moving towards cancer being a long-term condition rather than a life-threatening illness. There are still many thousands of people in Northern Ireland who are facing a very dark valley as a result of a cancer diagnosis, but things are moving in the right direction. Many outcomes in Northern Ireland are ahead of those in the UK and many parts of Europe. We have a lot to be proud of, and there will be further investment. Therefore, things are moving in the right direction despite very difficult financial times.

Joe Byrne: I also wish the Minister good luck in his new job, and I know that he will have the interests of patients at heart, given his commitment to health over the years.
On a resourcing matter, I want to ask the Minister about the gap in the out-of-hours GP services based in Strabane for that district. Can they be examined and rectified? On children's specialist services, can the Minister make sure that the service level agreements (SLA) are clearly understood by all hospitals, especially the South West Hospital, so that parents who have an urgently sick child can be reassured about how they should proceed to get the specialist care needed?

Jim Wells: I suppose that it was only a matter of time before someone went down to grass-roots level and asked me questions regarding provision in their area. The preparation for today's statement was based on a much higher level of policymaking based on the overall budget. I will examine the two issues that the Member raises about Strabane and the South West Acute Hospital and write to him, because I really could not have anticipated that such a fine detail question would be asked after a much more broad-brush statement.

Mitchel McLaughlin: Members should not need reminding that the questions are about the statement that was issued. It was a very detailed statement that dealt with two specific areas. There will be opportunities in the future to deal with wider issues, particularly in that sphere.

Robin Swann: I assure you that mine will be based on the statement. I declare an interest as having a son who is affected by the subject of the statement. In fact, this time last year, we were in Birmingham because Evan had just come through his cardiac surgery.
Minister, in your statement, you say that you will await the outcome of the 12-week consultation, but it also states that the SLAs will cease in 10 weeks' time, which will move more elective surgery to England until places are available in Crumlin. From our meeting yesterday, I assume that it will be 18 months before those places are available.
The interventional cardiology will cease in six months' time, and all the surgery will move to Dublin. Your statement indicated that Dublin was unable to cope with two emergency cases, one in August and one in September, which was only a few weeks ago. Minister, when you put those three timing issues into one place at one time, can you reassure me that individual care pathways can be established for each child before December and before these changes start to implement the surgeries that will affect the children and families in Northern Ireland?

Jim Wells: I thank the Member and his all-party group for the evidence and information that they have given us on this issue. I wish his son all the best as he goes through this difficult time in his life.
There are many areas between the statement today and the complete change in 18 months' time that will have to be examined very carefully and phased. However, we are dealing with a situation where we can no longer continue to provide a first-class service, given the patient numbers that we have in Northern Ireland. We are not anywhere near the 400 children that we need to provide a first-class service. That is a fact of life and the way that medicine is going. I will be liaising very closely with parent groups and the Member as we go through this difficult process to try to ensure that the movement from one situation to the other is done in a way that will have the least impact on vulnerable children. The pathways is one of the issues that will have to be looked at. At the end of the day, I hope that he accepts that we are doing this with the primary motivation of providing the best possible service for our children.
We are pretty certain that the SLA for elective surgery in Belfast will end in December 2014 — two months' time. All other SLAs will continue until the new international working group model is in place. Those include defined pathways for each child. I accept that the gap will be difficult to manage. I have said that there are many, many issues on my desk, and I regard this as being one of the top five. Therefore, I am going to take a deep personal interest in this to make certain that our children are not impacted by it. I have met too many loving, devoted parents throughout Northern Ireland who are caring for terribly ill children not to make certain that I will make this a personal priority. Frankly, I know that if I do not, the Member will be snapping at my heels daily — the quiet, reserved individual that he is — to make absolutely certain that I get this one right in conjunction with my colleagues in the Republic. That is why I am going down to see Leo Varadkar. That is why I have made it a priority to go down to Crumlin to make an assessment for myself, and that is why I will be keeping a very detailed overview of the entire process over the next 18 months.

Roy Beggs: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I congratulate him on his appointment. Elective care waiting lists have grown significantly over the last year. In your statement, you indicated that the investment in elective care will not meet the current pressures that exist in the trusts. In fact, you said that it would lead to elongated waiting times. Can you provide us with some hope as to when our health service will improve, when elective surgery will be brought down to the levels that occur in other parts of the United Kingdom and when the pressures on our A&Es will be resolved?

Jim Wells: I was expecting the honourable Member to ask that question. This is a very difficult issue. He has to understand that 63% of the health care budget in Northern Ireland is tied up in salaries, wages and pensions and that another £500 million of the budget is tied up in various contracts. We cannot legally touch those during any financial year without being taken to court and losing. Therefore, the actual aspect of the budget that I have, and that Edwin Poots had, that can be controlled effectively is a very small overall proportion. 
One of the areas where we can, as it were, turn off the tap of expenditure is elective care, particularly when it is contracted out to the private sector. It is not a position that any of us wants to be in, and yes, waiting lists will undoubtedly increase. We have already 20,000 people in the system at the moment who are waiting, and that is 1,000 people for every constituency, so I have no doubt that every Member in the House will start receiving letters. However, we simply have to devote the resources to where they are most needed.
Elective care tends to be life-enhancing rather than life-saving. I realise that many people are in considerable pain because they have not had their hip, knee or whatever done, but that is the situation that we are in. My predecessor had to issue information to the private sector telling it that there would be no further referrals apart from those that are in the system. So that, unfortunately, is the price we pay for the huge increase in demand that there has been. We are trying, through the use of trust resources, to put as many people through as we can, but the waiting list is challenging, to put it mildly, and will cause us considerable anguish over the next few months.

Gordon Dunne: I, too, welcome the Minister here today. Can he give us some assurance about the excellent work of the children's hospital at the Royal, especially the Clark Clinic? Will the excellent work that they do there before and after operations — they carry out operations at the moment — continue? Can he give us an assurance that that will continue at the current high standard? Also, it is important that we recognise the excellent work done by the Children's Heartbeat Trust in the lobbying and campaigning that it has done on this issue. A number of us, when we were newly elected, found this to be one of the first issues raised with us.

Jim Wells: I concur with the Member on the excellent work done by the charitable sector in this field. It has been very articulate and forceful in representing the needs of parents and their children. 
I emphasise that the statement that I have made this morning does not mean the end of paediatric cardiology services in the Belfast Trust. The IWG recommends that the single, all-island model will provide for a fully integrated team from Belfast and Dublin, with Belfast continuing to provide surgery for young adults and the adult population. I will go further by saying that I want to strengthen Belfast as a centre of excellence for cardiology. I have asked the board to bring forward investment proposals to secure this and strengthen the regional cardiac network at the same time. That will secure the specialist skills available in Belfast going forward within the single model. 
I agree with the Member in congratulating the previous work done in that hospital, but this is not the end. The very high level cardiac interventions will be done in Dublin from when the model is finished and rolled out. It is a different model, but we still place enormous store by the facilities at the Royal.

George Robinson: I thank the Minister for his statement. What will the spend on Transforming Your Care be directed towards?

Jim Wells: Included in the October monitoring round was a bid of £2·6 million and a proposed investment of £2·4 million. The proposed investment of £2·4 million reflects the ability to spend within the remaining months of 2014-15. These resources will be directed at developing a wide range of early intervention and prevention initiatives, including the treatment of atrial fibrillation, which would enable some 444 strokes to be avoided. There will be a range of investment in what are known as FREDS, including fall prevention, patient education on diabetes, strokes and early supported discharge (ESD), GP education and diabetes investigations. There is also the intention to develop GPs' ability to diagnose and commence treatment without a secondary referral. There will also be a continuation of diabetes self-management pilots, which are aimed at reducing the need for patients to attend outpatient appointments and which reduce insulin prescribing costs and avoid emergency department admissions. 
On the capital side, we are continuing with the building of new facilities at Banbridge and Newry, so investment is ongoing. Transforming Your Care continues throughout this, albeit in challenging times. As Members will know, we have made various monitoring round bids for this, and we have not been as successful as we would like to have been.

Pam Cameron: I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the Minister's statement. I welcome the Minister to his new and challenging role, and I congratulate Edwin Poots on the excellent job that he has done in recent years. What public health initiatives will be able to be taken forward in light of the statement?

Jim Wells: I am totally committed to the principle that we need to educate our public better in managing their own health. As a result of the agreement last Thursday, a number of services will be continued or expanded. There will be new developments in obesity services, such as the food in schools programme, to increase the levels of consumption of fruit and vegetables in primary-school children, increase access to physical activity programmes and see the development of further community-based initiatives to develop the skills of individuals and families to grow and cook healthy food.
On the flu vaccine, the number of people in the at-risk groups for flu has also been increased beyond the initial planning assumptions. The intranasal flu vaccine has helped Northern Ireland to achieve a higher than average uptake of flu vaccine for children, and those programmes will be able to continue.
Developments in core screening services will include the appointment of additional staff to meet increased demand in diabetic retinopathy; extension of the age for bowel cancer screening from 71 to 74 years; testing for HPV and cervical cancer screening; appointment of staff to provide quality-assured newborn blood spot screening; and the completion of the introduction of enhanced screening for women at a high risk of breast cancer. There will also be specialist nurses for homelessness and for the black and ethnic minority communities.
So there will be positive initiatives within the PHA. However, we still have a long way to go to achieve the right balance of the funding of that organisation, which is so essential.

Mitchel McLaughlin: That concludes questions on the statement.

Robin Swann: On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I want to seek guidance from the Speaker's Office about the detail of the statement. It covered two serious items: the outcome of the monitoring round and pediatric congenital cardiac services. Perhaps in future such a detailed statement that covers two very serious items could be dealt with in two individual statements.

Mitchel McLaughlin: That is generally a matter for the Minister. We have a new Minister, and he is obviously running to catch up with his brief and to keep the House informed. We all noted the detail of the statement, but I thought that the Minister was very good in taking questions on the two elements of the statement. For your information, it is a matter for the Minister.

Executive Committee Business

Lands Tribunal (Salaries) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014

David Ford: I beg to move
That the draft Lands Tribunal (Salaries) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 be approved.
I trust that this item of business will be somewhat shorter than that which the preceding Minister was subjected to.
Under the provisions of the Lands Tribunal and Compensation Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, my Department is responsible for the administration of the Lands Tribunal and determining the remuneration of its judiciary by order, a draft of which must be approved by the Assembly. The tribunal currently consists of a president and one other member, both of whom are appointed by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. 
The draft order that is before the House provides for an increase of 1% in the annual salaries that are payable to members of the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland, effective from 1 April 2014. That accords with the statement that was made by the Prime Minister on 13 March, following consideration of recommendations made in the thirty-sixth report of the Senior Salaries Review Body, that the Government have decided to increase judicial salaries by 1%. The Department of Finance and Personnel has approved the increase. 
At this stage, I wish to thank the Justice Committee for its customary careful and detailed consideration of the draft order. It is with the Committee’s support that I bring the draft order before the House. I commend it to the House.

Paul Givan: I will speak very briefly on the motion on behalf of the Committee. The Committee considered the proposal for the statutory rule in June this year and the statutory rule itself at its meeting on 2 July.
As outlined by the Minister, the rule provides for increases in the annual salary of the president and member of the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland. The increase is in line with the 2014 report of the Senior Salaries Review Body and the subsequent decision announced by the UK Government in a written statement in March that judicial salaries should increase by 1% from April this year.
On that basis, the Committee agreed that it was content with the statutory rule and therefore supports the motion.
Last year, a similar statutory rule came before the House to make provision for the 2013 change in salary for the same body. At the time, and I repeat, I expressed the view, which was accepted by the Minister, that the use of the affirmative resolution procedure was "odd" and not a good use of Assembly time, given that the salary increase affects one person and relates to a relatively small amount, and yet other statutory rules deal with changes to legal aid funding covering millions of pounds and they are subject to the negative resolution procedure. So, I am aware that the Department is exploring legislative options to amend the Lands Tribunal and Compensation Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 to remove the requirement to increase salaries of members of the Lands Tribunal by draft affirmative resolution procedure, and I urge the Minister to progress that as soon as possible so that a similar rule does not have to be brought to the Assembly next year for debate. I support the rule.

Mitchel McLaughlin: No other Members have notified that they wish to speak.

David Ford: Principal Deputy Speaker, I thank the Committee Chair, as ever. It is always good to record progress made between the Minister of a Department and a Committee. I entirely endorse the points that he made about the rather artificial nature of the debate that we are required to have, and I confirm that my aspiration accords entirely with his: that we will shortly be spared the difficult task of progressing this order annually. With that, I commend to the House what, I hope, will be one of the last such orders.

Mitchel McLaughlin: There is a danger of agreement breaking out, and the excitement could overtake us all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the draft Lands Tribunals (Salaries) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 be approved.

Education Bill: Accelerated Passage

John O'Dowd: I beg to move
That the Education Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I begin by stating that my request for accelerated passage is a decision that I have not taken lightly, nor is it an attempt to avoid proper scrutiny of the Bill by the Assembly. It is needed as a matter of urgency to meet a very tight timescale to ensure certainty in our education administration system by April 2015.
Indeed, the Bill and its accelerated passage would not have been needed had the Education and Skills Authority (ESA) been the future of our education administration system. However, despite my best efforts and those of others, it was not possible to get agreement. Had it been possible to secure agreement on the Education Bill, the ESA would have been in place for April 2015. In the meantime, while we have been waiting to get agreement on the ESA, local government reform has been steadily progressing and it now provides an inescapable deadline.
It has always been assumed that the establishment of the ESA would have prevented local government reform from having this unintended impact on education administration. As Members are aware, the territorial responsibility of our existing education and library boards (ELBs) is defined in law by reference to council areas. Currently, the reference is to the existing model of 26 councils, and so the ELBs are defined by five groupings of those 26 territories. From 1 April 2015, under the Local Government (Boundaries) Act 2008, our 26-council model will be replaced by the new 11-council one. Our ELBs should change to be compatible with that. Since May 2014, I have been seeking Executive agreement urgently to prepare legislation that will replace the five ELBs and their staff commission with one education authority. However, it was not until the Executive meeting of 9 September that my Executive colleagues reached that agreement. That has left a challenging time frame to ensure that the necessary legislation is in place that will allow me and my Department to ensure that our education system is compatible with local government reform by 1 April 2015.
In this interim period, my Department has worked to complete the draft of this legislation, the Education Bill 2014. The legislation that I propose is minimal, in the interests of securing consensus, and would deliver only structural and technical change. The Bill would simply change the current requirement of the Education and Libraries (NI) Order 1986 for there to be five ELBs into a requirement for there to be one education authority.
The functions and responsibilities of the Education Authority would be the same as those that are undertaken by the ELBs and would include their employer responsibilities. Employer responsibilities within our system would otherwise remain unchanged. The further provisions of the primary legislation will be the absolute minimum necessary.
In concluding, I will set out, as succinctly as I can, the reasons for my request for accelerated passage for the Bill. The reason why accelerated passage is needed is that the Executive, the Assembly and I should do all that is possible to avoid the risk of not having the Education Authority in place by 1 April 2015. Accelerated passage enables the measures necessary to establish the governance of the authority to begin at a point at which the 1 April deadline remains feasible.
Accelerated passage makes it possible to complete the legislation sufficiently in advance of 1 April 2015 for there to be time enough for my Department to apply the Bill’s schemes of transfer to the transfer from the ELBs to the new authority of approximately 40,000 staff, including teaching staff. Accelerated passage makes it possible for my Department to deliver for 1 April 2015 not only the legislation but the administrative minimum that is required to establish the new authority.
The main consequence of accelerated passage not being granted is that it will be impossible for the Education Authority to be in place for 1 April 2015. In that event, the highly negative default will be the unintended continuation of our five ELBs amidst new local government structures. While that scenario continues, the legal basis for our education and library boards’ responsibilities and their governance arrangements will be significantly less secure than was ever intended.
The consequence of accelerated passage not being granted is a scenario in which there are many significant risks. Those risks significantly outweigh the potential for accelerated passage to have any negative consequences, given the transparency of a minimalist six-clause Bill that will ensure the necessary structural and technical changes.
Finally, accelerated passage —

Tom Elliott: I thank the Minister for giving way. I am trying to assess the issues with accelerated passage. Does the Minister feel that this is a temporary process or temporary legislation that will be overtaken by a Bill that is wider ranging at a later stage? If so, is that one of the reasons for accelerated passage, or does he see this legislation being here for a long time to come?

John O'Dowd: I do not envisage bringing any further legislation forward during this mandate for the Education Authority or the structure of our educational administration.
The Bill allows for the minimum change required to ensure that our Education Authority is compatible with the new local government structures. It also provides a sturdy platform for change if a future Education Minister believes that is required, if the Executive agree with the Education Minister and if the Assembly agrees on legislation.
Nothing can happen beyond the Bill without the consent of the Assembly at a future date. Given that the necessary time frame does not exist in this mandate, it is not my intention to bring forward any further legislation for our education administration. The Bill gives certainty to our education structures. In the future, if someone wishes to make a change, so be it.
Finally, accelerated passage is a measure that caters for the unique demands of the present situation and the very tight time —

Sandra Overend: Will the Minister give way?

John O'Dowd: I am more than happy to give way.

Sandra Overend: The Minister is very kind. I refer him to clause 4(3), which states:
"The Department may by order make such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision as it considers necessary or appropriate in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, any provision made by this Act."
Clause 4(6) states that such an order would be subject to negative resolution, which means that it would not come before the Committee for agreement. So I am asking the Minister —

Mitchel McLaughlin: The Member will have an opportunity to put those points as we discuss the purpose of the motion. I wonder why you are interrupting the Minister at this point.

Sandra Overend: Sorry, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. If we are looking for accelerated passage, that is one of the reasons why we —

Mitchel McLaughlin: We are about to move into a discussion, and you will have every opportunity to make that point.

Sandra Overend: OK. I am sorry.

John O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat. I will come back and answer that point in more detail as the debate goes on, but the key is this: I can commence only those orders that are in connection with the Bill. I cannot go beyond the Bill or bring in by order any changes that should be covered by primary legislation. So when introducing the clause that you mentioned, I can commence only those changes that are commensurate to or in connection with the Bill. I cannot introduce primary legislation through the process that you outlined. It would not be allowed into the Assembly by the Speaker's office, and it would not get past the Executive or, in fact, the Assembly. There is no underhand mechanism. It is a clause that is in much legislation, but it relates only to the powers in each individual piece of legislation. On that point, I bring my opening comments to an end.

Mitchel McLaughlin: In light of the interventions, I urge Members to stick to the purpose of the discussion, which is accelerated passage. As soon as we discuss that, and if we agree to proceed, there will be a further debate, when we will be able to examine all the details of the Bill. Members should keep their focus on the purpose of this phase of the Bill, which is accelerated passage.

Michelle McIlveen: Let me begin by declaring an interest as a member of the board of governors of Castle Gardens Primary School, Newtownards and Killinchy Primary School. With your permission, I will initially make a few remarks as Chairperson of the Committee for Education before speaking as an individual Member.
On 30 September 2014, in line with Standing Order 42(3), the Minister briefed the Education Committee on accelerated passage for the Education Bill. He said that accelerated passage was sought owing to the timescales associated with aspects of the reform of public administration. The Committee questioned the Minister on the justification for that.
The ongoing changes to local government, agreed by the House as part of RPA, are wide-ranging. From 1 April 2015, we will see changes to district councils, not only to their powers but to the number of councils and their boundaries.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair)
As the Minister just said, the existing education and library boards are defined by the old district council boundaries. Indeed, the allocation of places on the boards is also determined in part by the number of district councils in a board's area and the related relative populations of schoolchildren in the maintained and controlled sectors.
The Minister advised the Committee that, without the Bill, the RPA changes could undermine the legal certainty associated with the obligations and responsibilities of the education and library boards. It was further argued that accelerated passage was needed to mitigate that risk, as was pointed out today.
I think that everyone on the Committee understands that the roll-out of RPA will necessitate changes to the education and library boards. I also think, or at least hope, that the last thing that anyone on the Committee wants to do is to introduce further uncertainty into the administration of education.
Setting aside the wider RPA issues, I think it worth mentioning that the existing ELBs and other organisations have been limping along for quite some time. Vacancy controls, in place since 2006, and several hundred voluntary severances have had a substantial impact on their efficiency and operability. Indeed, perhaps a third of non-teaching ELB staff and a larger proportion of senior staff are in temporary positions.
As a member of a number of boards of governors and Chair of the Education Committee, I know that this has been a difficult time for the education and library boards. I know also that many people in those organisations will welcome the early establishment of the proposed Education Authority and the associated stabilisation of staffing arrangements. I understand that, but it should be noted that the Bill will create a very large public sector organisation. The Committee has received only limited information on its anticipated structure, staffing levels and transitional arrangements. Welcome though the information provided so far has been, it is neither sufficient nor satisfactory.
The change proposed in the Bill is limited but, nonetheless, significant. Given the importance of the dissolution of the ELBs and their replacement by the Education Authority, it is unfortunate that it appears that the Committee will not get the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation to the extent that it would have liked. Notwithstanding this, the majority of members of the Committee will, with some reservations, support the motion for accelerated passage. I should indicate that, whether or not the Assembly agrees to accelerated passage, the Committee will expect to receive more information and regular updates on the Minister’s plans for the establishment of the Education Authority. I ask that, in his response today, the Minister assents to this.
There are a number of issues and important principles in the Education Bill. There are also important questions in respect of representative bodies, for example, for the controlled sector. As is usual, I will air the Committee’s views on those subjects during the Second Stage debate that is scheduled for later today.
Speaking as a DUP MLA, the road to reform has been long and fraught. After two aborted Bills, it is disappointing that this Bill should come before us with such limited time to consider it. The work of the Education Committee in forensically examining the clauses and outworkings of the previous two Bills was exemplary, and showed the effectiveness of the Committee system in the scrutiny of legislation. That said, the two previous Bills were unwieldy pieces of legislation that truly merited clause-by-clause examination, particularly given the radical overhaul that they would have given effect to for the whole education system in Northern Ireland. 
The Bill for which accelerated passage is being sought is much less radical but nonetheless important. If legislation is not passed, the education system will not be standing at a crossroads but on a cliff edge. Ideally, I would like to have had the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation in Committee. That process has shown itself to be extremely thorough and effective to date. Similarly, I would have liked the Minister to have brought these proposals sooner, as it was clear for some time that the previous Bill was not going to obtain the support necessary. In fact, the proposals in the Bill bear a striking resemblance to the position that the DUP suggested in 2008. 
Unfortunately, the realities of the situation do not permit that. We face the reality that the passage of legislation must be accelerated to ensure that there is service delivery come 1 April next year. It is with reluctance, therefore, that I will accede to accelerated passage. That the Bill is to have no formal Committee Stage does not mean that the Committee will be ignoring its outworkings. I sincerely hope that the Minister and his officials will provide the information necessary to facilitate the work that the Committee will carry out. The time constraint will necessitate promptness from the Department, and I ask the Minister to give his undertaking to cooperate fully with the Committee in its endeavours. 
It is regrettable that we have an eleventh-hour solution to a matter that has taken almost six years to resolve. It could have been handled much more effectively had the Department not, with ESA, bitten off more than it could chew. There remain some outstanding issues, which I will go into in more detail during the Second Stage; these issues would have benefited from thorough examination in a Committee Stage. While more detailed consideration of any Bill is always the better course, given the perilous predicament that education will be placed in should the Bill not proceed, we understand the reasons for accelerated passage at this stage.

Christopher Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I, too, welcome the Minister bringing forward the relevant legislation to bring our education administration system into line in time for the implementation of RPA on 1 April 2015. Effective and efficient reform of our system has long been sought, so it is fair to say that each and every part of our education system looks forward to this long overdue process of change. 
Given the quite considerable time constraints that the Minister and Department face in implementing the proposed changes, Sinn Féin is content that the Bill proceeds with accelerated passage. At the end of September, the Minister briefed the Committee on various aspects of the Bill and took the opportunity to outline the need for accelerated passage. I think that it is fair to suggest that the Committee took on board the rationale presented by the Minister, and I hope that such consensus will be reached again here today. Too often in recent years, political consensus on educational reform has been difficult to achieve. To the detriment of our system and the welfare of our teachers and pupils, the protection of narrow political interests has scuppered much-needed educational reform. To the eyes of many, certain political parties have too often trapped themselves in the straitjacket of zero-sum politics when discussing administrative reform in our education system. They prioritise the narrow needs of a particular interest over the strategic interests of our system as a whole. Indeed, in 2011, the Assembly agreed to the establishment of ESA. However, despite the Minister agreeing to a number of significant compromises, we were still unable to secure political agreement to take the Education Bill forward. There can be no doubt that the delay in reaching agreement on this critical issue is having a detrimental impact on education structures. It must not be allowed to continue.
Given the huge financial constraints being imposed on the Assembly, and specifically on education budgets, the fact that the reform has the potential to save £180 million over the next 10 years should not be cast aside so easily. Not only will the reform deliver much of the savings and efficiencies of the original ESA plans, but it will ensure the effective use of public funds and that the money already invested in preparing for ESA has not been wasted.
The Minister has outlined today the severe implications if accelerated passage were not to be granted and that the 1 April 2015 deadline would, in all probability, be breached. Not only would the system once again bemoan the lack of cohesion and vision from its political representatives in Stormont, but the failure to align our administration structures to that of the review of public administration would place our boards on a precarious legal footing. It is a nightmare scenario that must be avoided. The boards have endeavoured for some years now to shoulder much of the effects of a lack of agreement on ESA. We must not walk away from the table again without agreeing a way forward.
The Minister summed it up well at Committee and again here today when he described the consequence of accelerated passage not being granted as a "scenario of many significant risks". Those risks significantly outweigh the potential for accelerated passage to have any negative consequences given the transparent straightforwardness of a Bill that contains six clauses. I also welcome the commitment from the Minister that this instance does not establish or intend any precedent in bringing forward future legislation. It is a measure for the unique demand of the present situation and the time frame imposed by RPA. In light of such, we are content to support the Minister's request for accelerated passage.

Sean Rogers: I declare an interest as the chair of the board of governors of Grange Primary School. The preamble on the Department's website is still for ESA, but it holds very true for the Education Bill. It states:
"The purpose of education reform is to improve outcomes for all young people in education and to ensure equality of access to quality education provision. It also aims to streamline education administration to ensure that much needed resources can be directed to supporting front line services."
It is a shame that £17 million has been wasted over the years. Think of it simply as this: you could have employed another 140 teachers over the last five years. What a difference that would have made to raising standards.
We would have liked to have the opportunities to scrutinise the Bill in Committee, and we would have expected the impasse with ESA to be recognised earlier and for the Bill to be brought to the House a bit earlier as well. Let us face it: too much money is wasted in five parallel education authorities. I look forward to one authority. We in the SDLP will support the idea of accelerated passage. As the Minister said, this is a platform for potential future reform, but the platform must be fit for purpose and we must all leave from the same platform. Further procrastination in the education sector is not an option. We will support the accelerated passage, but the authority must be representative of all in the education community. I trust that the new authority will help to reduce the bureaucracy in the management of our education system by reducing duplication and streamlining management structures.

Danny Kinahan: I welcome the Bill. All along, the Ulster Unionist Party has wanted to see a suitable ESA Bill that delivers a better education system in a leaner and more economic manner, so we welcome that sort of streamlining. The spin that was being put out about the Executive all agreeing to this is just not right. The public were misled on that matter, and they should receive an apology. Our Minister opposed the accelerated passage of the Bill, and it is our intention today to oppose accelerated passage. It is sad that we seem to have an interim sticking plaster of a Bill. It makes me think that, once again, we have the two main parties doing a deal.
I know that, in the summer, there were all sorts of discussions, compromises and groups going through, but none of that has ever gone to the Committee or to the other parties. It is as if they are frightened of consultation and of actually talking to people. There has been no effort to work with all parties for a consensus, and I think there is no intention to do so. I wonder whether the DUP has been bought again by the promise of a controlled sector body. We do all want to see a controlled sector body, but we want to see a Bill that works for everyone, and that is why it needed proper consultation. I think that is a very good reason for us to oppose accelerated passage today.
I was not involved with the first ESA Bill, but I was very involved with the second ESA Bill. The second ESA Bill was very different from the first. It did not go through a proper consultation process. In fact, I wrote to every single principal and chair of governors in every school, and 88% said that they had not been properly consulted, yet here we are. It is a disgrace. Here we are, rushing again and accelerating a Bill through that is phenomenally important.
I would like to hear from the Minister whom he has spoken to in the schools, the boards and everywhere else, because we would like to know on what basis the Bill has been put together. Sadly, I could not make the Committee meeting when the Minister was there to answer questions, but I have the transcript. In it, he claims that the previous ESA Bill was agreed. It may have only been agreed by the two main parties, but the reason why it fell was because it was not consulted on or taken through the processes with all the other parties beforehand. If it had not been for the Ulster Unionist Party raising the concerns, we would have had that ESA Bill in place. Here we go again.
We were told in the briefing on the Bill that there are no other options and that, for legal reasons, we must accept that the Bill is the only solution, because councils need to have representation on the library boards and, because they have changed, that legal basis no longer exists. Is that really the right reason, or is it just an excuse to get a quick Bill through that still gives the strength to the Department to do what it wants? Did the Department consider reorganising the elections, or, rather, those from councils on the education committees, in a different way so that we did not have to have this one Bill? Did they look at a different system of SL1s and other forms of Committee work and legislation to actually get it in place and get it working so that we do not have this interim or sticking-plaster Bill?
I believe that the Minister does want to improve our education system and works at it. I just disagree about the fact that he never talks to the other parties as to how it is to be done. I sometimes suspect, especially after what happened with the inspection report, that he is being run by Connolly House and we are not actually being treated to the democracy that we all deserve.
With that all in mind, we have to ask ourselves whether we are being forced to accept this relatively simple Education Bill with accelerated passage because it suits them and not the rest of us. Some I spoke to in the education system said that we should really have three boards, which would be more preferable than one board. It would give us some form of comparability and some form of local accountability, yet, because we have had no consultation, no chance for consultation and no Committee Stage, we will not be able to explore that. If you had three boards, you could have one for Belfast and two others to fit the more rural communities. You could work on it through a proper Bill in time to get it into a more efficient system. Comparison, like competition, is an extremely efficient way of ensuring that a government system works properly.
It looks like we are going to get one single board, and that will become another silo — another monolith that is not answerable to anyone except the Department. We were told that the education and library boards were going to be rebooted. That was back at the beginning of the year. We know that the curriculum advisory and support service (CASS) has been reduced and is struggling. We know that teachers in every school are not receiving the support that they should be and that, consequently, the children in those schools are also not receiving the education. That, of course, works into the future. It now seems that, even when accelerated passage is put in place, that same help is going to be delayed further, until April 2015.
Will the Minister clarify whether money will go to the boards in the meantime and in the future so that that is not the case?
There is very little detail in the Bill, which concerns me even further. How will the educational services actually be provided on the ground? When speaking to the Committee, the Minister said that he wanted a body that is accessible to the schools and communities that it serves. If that is the case, will he outline today how that new body will work on the ground so that it is accessible to schools and communities? We do not know the structure and we will not be able to discuss it in the Committee in the detail that we should.
The previous ESA Bill wasted £18 million-plus. We do not know how much this new Bill will cost. Indeed, has it had a good economic viability check? It is claimed that the same Bill has had equality impact screening but if you look at how little is in the Bill and how little we know about it, you see that it really does affect everyone in the community. I feel that it needs proper equality impact screening as it goes along.
My colleague raised the fact of negative resolution on one of the clauses in the Bill. The Minister responded that he could not bring forward primary legislation. That is the very reason that we need the Committee Stage and longer to look at this. We need to know exactly what it can and cannot affect. Certainly, we need to change the fact that it has negative resolution. 
I put it to everyone here that we should not accept accelerated passage because there has been no consultation. The Committee needs to know much more about the detail of the Bill and has a duty to the public to scrutinise it. No other options are being shown or considered — we are certainly not even looking at the option of more than one board. There is little detail on the structures and organisations that will work on the ground and we have not looked at the actual effects on the community itself. The Ulster Unionist Party opposes accelerated passage.

Trevor Lunn: I apologise to the Minister for not being here for most of his statement. I was unavoidably detained.
Those of us who have been with this process since 2007 effectively, which includes the Minister himself and, to a certain extent, the current Committee Chair, would almost accept anything at this stage. We have been through an ESA Bill that was split in two, followed by a further ESA Bill. What we are looking at now are the tattered remnants of what was actually a very good Bill, the second ESA Bill, but it is the best that the Minister can hope to achieve through the House at the present time. Somebody mentioned the eleventh-hour nature of it. Frankly, we do everything at the eleventh hour, do we not? That is the way in which this House works — by deadlines.
We have no problem with accelerated passage. That is what this short debate was meant to be about, although I hear an awful lot of detailed stuff coming in already. What is left of what was a good Bill is so simple. I hear Mr Kinahan saying that we do not know enough detail of the Bill. Well, read it. It is only really a couple of pages. The rest of it is all of the tidying-up stuff, repeals and amendments of previous legislation.

Danny Kinahan: Will the Member give way?

Trevor Lunn: Yes, certainly. Go on.

Danny Kinahan: I wonder whether the Member would clarify how, if there is so little detail in it — and I have read it from top to bottom — he can feel happy with accelerated passage when we do not actually know what is coming with it?

Trevor Lunn: I do not know, frankly, what the Member means about what is coming with it. We can have that discussion at the next Stage. There is plenty of time, certainly this afternoon, for a lot more detail. 
In the meantime, as somebody has already said, the education boards are, in the Chairperson's words, limping along. That is being kind to them — they are almost broken. We badly need a new arrangement. There are certainly questions to be asked about it. Will it save £180 million in the next 10 years as was actually promised for ESA? That was an ESA figure: it does not necessarily apply to this. As regards whether there is one board or three, I have an awful feeling that if the Minister had proposed three boards, the Ulster Unionists would now propose one. We just cannot keep on doing business like this.

Danny Kinahan: Cynical.

Trevor Lunn: I know that I am being cynical, Mr Kinahan, but that is the way that it sounds. There always seems to be opposition to everything. I can find no sensible reason to oppose accelerated passage for the Bill. As I said, those of us who have been with it for seven years have to welcome it. It is a stopgap arrangement. A lot more will come down the track eventually, but I will have more to say about that in the next debate.

Steven Agnew: At the outset, I declare an interest as a director of the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, but I am speaking as a Green Party Member.
The failure to agree the ESA Bill was very much a failure of the Executive. Now the Assembly is being asked to consent to that failure by granting accelerated passage for this Bill, and I cannot support that. It is important that we get the Bill right rather than getting it quickly. It is important that Members have time to consider potential amendments, what has been lost from the ESA Bill and what further could perhaps be salvaged. 
I understand that there is concern about the footing of the education and library boards. Whilst I am as keen as anyone else in the House for a long-term solution, whatever it might look like, to give certainty to the education sector, a rushed Bill will only ever be a stopgap and will not provide that certainty. I am not sure whether the Bill, or granting it accelerated passage, would serve the purpose that it purports to serve.
It very much appears that the slimmed-down Bill is what can be and has been agreed between the DUP and Sinn Féin. However, it is not what has been agreed in negotiation with the Assembly. It is right that such an important Bill should go through the full processes. The Chair of the Committee referred to it as an eleventh-hour solution. It is too important an issue to be taken forward in this manner, so for that reason, I oppose accelerated passage.

John McCallister: I am somewhat surprised that so many Members seem willing to go along with whatever the Executive arm of government demands of us. Are we nothing more than a seldom-used rubber stamp for the Executive? Has the Assembly no aspirations to be something more and be the primary legislative body for Northern Ireland? That is what is at stake here. We should grant accelerated passage only in the most extreme circumstances.
On the one hand, we hear from Mr Lunn, who says that we are so ground down by this that we would accept almost anything at this stage. Effectively, we can write the Executive a blank cheque — a blank cheque to an already bankrupt Executive. That is why the House should oppose accelerated passage. We are told by Mr Lunn that it is a relatively short and simple Bill. If it is short and simple, why on earth would we do it by accelerated passage? The two do not sit together.
I have been critical of other parties that brought forward accelerated passage. I have been critical of the UUP bringing the Road Races (Amendment) Bill by accelerated passage. I have been critical of the DUP bringing Bills by accelerated passage when it was clearly unnecessary to do so. I refer Members to the Planning Bill, which Mr Kinahan will have experience of. The Planning Bill was introduced to the House on 6 December 2010. I think that Edwin Poots was the then Minister of the Environment. He did not ask for accelerated passage. That Bill had 248 clauses, seven schedules and 205 pages, and it went to Final Stage before the Assembly was dissolved on 23 March, just over three months later. The Committee worked at that Bill. The Committee held extra meetings to get the Bill through. The Committee worked and engaged with the Department to pass the Bill. I believe that we had a better Bill at the end of it. 
So, why are the Minister, the Committee and so many Members ganging up and saying that it is right to do this? Why not let the Bill go through the normal processes? This is a failure because we could not agree on the ESA. I refer Members to OFMDFM's statement in July 2012. It stated that discussions had been successfully concluded and that the Bill would be brought to the next meeting of the Executive in order to commence its passage in the Assembly. It is over two years since those discussions were, supposedly, successfully concluded. 
I sat on the Education Committee for over a year with the current Minister and other Members here. Ms Ruane brought the first ESA Bill to Committee, then we had a second one and now we have a carve-up deal cobbled together at the last minute to get us over the line. It has been quite obvious for months, and even years, that you were not going to get your way on the ESA Bill. The Assembly, led by many colleagues in here, was broadly saying no. Then you cobbled together this Bill and are proceeding to bypass the legitimacy of the Assembly in having a scrutinising role. I think that it is absolutely disgraceful. We should not use accelerated passage unless we are absolutely convinced that there are no options and that we need emergency legislation. 
The Minister has more than adequate time, and I am quite sure that the Chair of the Committee would be willing to have extra meetings, with the time limit set for the start of April to coincide with the new councils, to work hard on that scrutiny. The Minister would have a better Bill at the end of it. So, why the Assembly has to pick up the mistakes and failures of our Executive is beyond me. Why so many Members have willingly coalesced on that, I have no idea. At times, the Assembly should stand up in robust opposition to the Executive and say, "We are not going to be treated like that. We are not going to be used as a rubber stamp when you mess up and cannot get your act together. If you cannot get your legislation into this Building in time, you pick up the problems." The Assembly should be very strong. 
I have to say that I am surprised that so many parties in the Assembly, particularly some of the smaller ones that sometimes count themselves as having a more oppositional role, are going along with this. They should reflect and think about how and why we are granting this procedure. The Bill has some controversy in it. It is time that the Assembly stopped writing blank cheques for the bankrupt Executive and started to stand up to them and robustly defend representative democracy.
The debate stood suspended.
The sitting was suspended at 12.28 pm.
On resuming —

Oral Answers to Questions

Finance and Personnel

John Dallat: Questions 10 and 12 have been withdrawn. We will start with listed questions.

Budget Pressures

Robin Swann: 1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline the extent of the inescapable budgetary pressures facing the Executive. (AQO 6792/11-15)

Finance: Executive Discussions

Kieran McCarthy: 14. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for his assessment of the conclusions reached as part of the recent Executive discussions over financial issues. (AQO 6805/11-15)

Simon Hamilton: With your permission Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to answer questions 1 and 14 together, as they relate to the same issue of budgetary pressures and possible consequences of continued deadlock in the Executive.
As Members will be aware, the Executive agreed the October monitoring resource allocations on 9 October. I updated the Assembly on the outcome of this in my statement yesterday. The June monitoring round agreed resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) reductions of £77·9 million, equating to 2·1%. An additional 2·3% reduction was required to meet the £87 million cost of not implementing welfare reform. This has now been agreed.
Through negotiations with Her Majesty's Treasury, I have secured access to the reserve in 2014-15 of up to £100 million. This has allowed the Executive to make allocations of £125 million to mitigate the worst impact of these reductions. However, this is far from an ideal solution. It is most unfortunate that the intransigence of some in the Executive has enforced the need to call upon the £100 million facility. This will make the 2015-16 Budget considerably more difficult because, in addition to having to cover £114 million of welfare reform savings lost to Treasury, we will now be faced with repaying an additional £100 million.

Robin Swann: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, can you clarify what the £7·6 million allocated to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) will be used for, with particular reference to equal pay?

Simon Hamilton: That question would probably have been better put to me yesterday. I will do my best, and, if I leave anything out, I will ensure that the Member is written to and informed fully. A pressure had developed. There were two elements that fed into the pressure of over £7million in the PPS. One was to do with casework pressures, but the larger amount was to do with the resolution of a pay settlement in a case that had been settled in the courts earlier this year or late last year. So, it became a legal and contractual requirement and therefore inescapable, as indeed were many of the other pressures that were addressed in the £125 million allocation. They were not necessarily things that we wanted to do or that fitted in with the Executive's strategy of delivering Programme for Government targets. They were things that, legally, we had to do, in this case as the result of a court judgement.

Kieran McCarthy: Would the Minister agree that, in the long term, tackling the issue of a divided society will be as important as reaching a sustainable position on welfare reform?

Simon Hamilton: I do not want to be dismissive of the idea, notion or aspiration of ending a divided society and having a more united, and therefore more prosperous, society in Northern Ireland. I think that that is an aim that all of us share. We all have to continue to ensure that we are making every effort that we can to meet that goal. I suppose that it depends on how the Member would define "long term". He is older than me, so long term might be longer for him than it is for me.
The immediate problem that we have is around our Budget. That is exacerbated and not helped at all by what we are having to repay. I know that the Member agrees with me in this regard. The penalties that we are having to pay — £87 million this year and £114 million next year — are creating a real present and pressing problem. That is what we tried to deal with in the October monitoring round. Whilst I think that it is noble and correct to aim to end the divisions in our society, it is not as immediate and pressing as the issue of welfare reform in the context of this year's Budget. However, that does not mean that Members, including myself, or anybody else should be dismissive of trying to break down barriers that are costing government in Northern Ireland money on an ongoing basis.

Daithí McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The inescapables to which the Minister referred today and yesterday are no doubt partly a result of the fact that the cuts got deeper and deeper the closer you got to the end of this budgetary period.
In his correspondence and communication with the Treasury, how has he pushed the Treasury to change its policy direction? It is clear that the Tories are intent on further cutting our Budget and ensuring that the financial crisis that we face continues, as it looks set to do.

Simon Hamilton: The Member is right to identify that our Budget is facing a number of pressures. I have not denied that, do not deny it and will not deny it. I have spoken at length in the House about the pressure that not progressing with welfare reform is having. No one in the House, regardless of their position on the policy of welfare reform, can deny that the pressure is increasing. Last year, it was £13 million; this year, it is £87 million; and, next year, it will be £114 million. That pressure will grow and grow. According to work that DSD has carried out, it is anticipated that in excess of £300 million will come out of our Budget in 2018-19, if we have not progressed with welfare reform legislation by that stage.
There are other pressures. The Member will be aware of pressures in respect of public sector pensions. Departments are having pressures as well, although he is right to point out that many of the inescapable pressures that we have addressed became inescapable because of the stage in the financial year at which we were taking decisions to trim other budgets to help to pay for them. Yes, they were deemed to be inescapable, but the degree to which they became inescapable was exacerbated by our lack of taking a sensible decision, back in June — a decision to take the full 4·4% out at that time, which I recommended but which the Executive did not endorse. The Member is right: there are other pressures. They include the fact that our resource budget has remained fairly flat. It has risen, but, in real terms, it is due to go down by 1·6% next year. That presents a challenge on top of all those other challenges that we face.
I am sure that my party's Members of Parliament will ensure that Northern Ireland's voice is heard in Parliament and that, where there are unnecessary, unfair reductions to our Budget, the Government in Westminster will hear, loudly and clearly, that they are not acceptable. I wish that others would perhaps join us in making that call in the appropriate place.

Ian McCrea: Can the Minister outline the potential implications if the Executive fail to agree a Budget for 2015-16?

Simon Hamilton: The Member is trying to lure me into a scenario that I do not want to contemplate, which is not having a Budget in place for next year. There are two ramifications, one of which is in the short term. The letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the First Minister was shared with Members yesterday, and it was very clear. There is a condition within it that we have to agree a credible plan and a balanced Budget by the end of this month if we wish to access the £100 million facility made available through the national reserve. I think that I have made clear over the last number of days — certainly, yesterday — how necessary that £100 million is to ensuring that we live within our means this year. So, in the first instance, we need to agree a Budget to ensure that we can access that money, and all those hellish, nightmarish scenarios around cuts to public services can be avoided.
In the longer term, I suppose, there is a concern that the deadlock will continue, primarily because of a lack of agreement on welfare reform and the ramifications that that will have for next year's Budget, in penalties and other costs, and we are unable to agree a total Budget. I remain optimistic that we can get a draft Budget out the door, and I will be making every effort in the coming days and weeks to ensure that we meet the deadline of having it agreed by the end of October. Of course, section 59 of the 1998 Act empowers the permanent secretary of my Department to allocate up to 95% of the previous year's Budget to the next year's Budget, but I think that everybody in the House will agree that we do not want to get into a situation in which civil servants are making that sort of decision. We should have the ability and courage to move forward with what will be a very difficult Budget and to take necessary decisions in the coming days and weeks to ensure that we have a balanced budget and a credible plan to move forward on that basis.

Dominic Bradley: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister clarify whether he intends to address the residual equal pay issues within the Northern Ireland Civil Service and will that include civil servants who, previously, were with the Northern Ireland Office?

Simon Hamilton: When I hear "equal pay", I know and the Member will be aware that there are at least two issues. One is for those who are leavers and retirees, and the Member will be aware that, over the last number of months, the Department has settled that case with the union and is actively trying to ensure that those who are entitled gain access to that settlement. That was, of course, changed by the number of years one was out of service, and I think it was the Abdulla case in Birmingham City Council that changed the legal position in respect of that. I cannot remember the precise figure, but my understanding is that the vast majority of cases have been settled and that there is a residue of a number of cases that have not been settled. We will continue to work over the next while to try to make contact with those who are entitled to ensure that they get what they are entitled to.
The other issue that has been raised with me several times in this House is in respect of former employees of the NIO and the police. I think that the House knows my position on this. I want to deal with that issue. I always repeat, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record on this matter, that there is no legal entitlement for those people to have access to the previous equal pay settlement. Notwithstanding that, I think that there is a moral case. I have put a solution to the Executive that I think deals with the matter to address that moral case that I believe is there. Unfortunately, that has not found favour on all sides of the Executive. To be fair, most Ministers, including the Member's party colleague and, indeed, other Ministers, including party colleagues of mine, have contacted me and said that they are content with the solution that I have put forward. Unfortunately, the problem and the blockage on this matter rest with Sinn Féin, which wants a solution that, I believe, does not take cognisance of the fact that there is no legal entitlement. If we were to follow through with that solution, it would be unaffordable to the Executive. Surprise, surprise —

John Dallat: The Minister's two minutes are up.

Simon Hamilton: — Sinn Féin expects us to go off to London and ask for them to give us the money to pay for it.

Revenue-raising Proposals

Cathal Boylan: 2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline his Department's proposals for raising revenue under the current local fiscal arrangements (AQO 6793/11-15)

Simon Hamilton: In Budget 2011-15, the Executive agreed that the levels of domestic and non-domestic regional rates would be increased in line with inflation. For next year’s budget, my Department is working on the assumption that this policy will continue and that the level of the regional rate for the 2015-16 year will increase by the rate of inflation.

Cathal Boylan: Minister, in order to increase our local resources and maintain our front line provisions, can you outline any proposals for targeting local levies that will assist our budgets at this time?

Simon Hamilton: I might be the only person in the House, but I think that I know what the Member is getting at. There seems to be some confusion in different quarters. I suspect that he is talking about the Executive taking on more tax-varying powers that might assist us in some way or another. Again, I think that I have been fairly consistent in coming to the House and saying that I do not have a reflexive, knee-jerk response to it where I think that all tax-varying powers should be ruled out. It is quite the opposite. I think that I have set down very clearly the tests that I think need to be passed on further tax devolution to the Assembly. One is that it needs to be affordable; secondly, it needs to have a very clear social and/or economic benefit to Northern Ireland. On that basis, we have supported and have gained the devolution of air passenger duty for long haul flights in the past because it was affordable and it secured our only direct flight into North America. We continue to pursue, and I remain optimistic that we will get, the power to devolve corporation tax to Northern Ireland. Whilst that is more expensive than air passenger duty for long haul flights, it is, I think, affordable, and it does produce the very clear long-term benefits of increased jobs, and jobs that pay well in excess of the average wage in Northern Ireland.
My Department has undertaken a piece of work on other powers that could be devolved to Northern Ireland, consistent with the commitment made in the economic pact that was agreed with the Prime Minister in June 2013. I hope to have that piece of work and the conclusions contained therein with Executive colleagues in the next number of weeks. Our initial reading of that is that, in having very clearly defined social and economic benefits for Northern Ireland, there are no other or not many taxes available to us or ones that we might take that would have the same transformative effect that corporation tax would have or which would pass that affordability test.

Pam Cameron: Does the Minister have any plans to reduce or remove anything from the rate scheme for next year?

Simon Hamilton: The Member and, I am sure, the House will be aware that the small business rate relief scheme, which was introduced a number of years ago and which has been extended twice since, has a shelf life whereby it ends at the end of this financial year. I have initiated and am close to the conclusion of a review that is being carried out by the Northern Ireland Centre for Economic Policy (NICEP) into the merits of the scheme and how it has functioned, and, of course, that will then inform any decision that I might want to make, in the context of next year's Budget, as to whether we extend that scheme any further. That is the only one that there is no doubt or a question mark over. I think that I made it pretty clear that I think that there is merit in some type of scheme moving forward, because, when the scheme was introduced, we were in the middle of the recession, and whilst we can confidently say that we are in recovery now, certain sectors, particularly retail, continue to suffer in particular parts of Northern Ireland. So, there is probably a need, I believe, for some sort of scheme to continue. The complexion and the quantum of that will be something that the work of NICEP will help to inform. Above and beyond that, none of the other rate reliefs will be taken off the table or done away with in the next financial year.

Patsy McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as na freagraí cuimsitheacha. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answers. Could he provide us with some detail as to what assets he or his Department have identified that could be used to realise revenue?

Simon Hamilton: I do not have a list of all the assets. I am sure that, if I had that list and started to read it out to the Member, I would exceed my two minutes. I would probably take the entirety of the remainder of Question Time, including Health questions. 
There is an active asset management strategy in place that has been agreed by the Executive, and it is taken forward primarily by properties division in my Department and in conjunction with OFMDFM. That is identifying, on an ongoing basis, those assets that are no longer required by the public sector and looking at the best option for realising and accruing better benefits for the public sector, and that could involve selling those assets and getting a capital receipt. Sometimes it involves getting planning permission for an asset or a site so that you increase the value of it. It also involves decanting, and my Department has been very active in moving out of some leased estate that we have and going back into some of our own estate or moving into new offices that are better suited to modern work practices. That is saving a considerable amount of money, year on year, but that needs to be continually assessed and looked at on an ongoing basis because opportunities will present themselves. 
The Executive have actively pursued realising benefits from assets sales over this Budget period, and the Member will recall that, at the start of this Budget period, it was our capital budget that was under real pressure and we needed to sell assets to get money to invest in infrastructure. That has happened and will continue to happen where and when it is appropriate.

Welfare Reform: Economic Impact

Ian Milne: 3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel who will draw up the terms of reference for the independent research on the economic impact of welfare reform. (AQO 6794/11-15)

Paul Girvan: 5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether the impact of welfare reform on Northern Ireland study, commissioned by the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), is an accurate reflection of the current financial and economic pressures facing Northern Ireland. (AQO 6796/11-15)

Simon Hamilton: Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I would like to answer questions 3 and 5 together. 
The issue with the report on the impact of welfare reform on Northern Ireland, commissioned by NICVA, is not so much with the report itself but rather with how the information has been interpreted by some parties. Indeed, NICVA recently stated that some £500 million of the much quoted £750 million that will be taken out of Northern Ireland as a result of welfare reform relates to changes that have already taken place or which are outside the control of the Northern Ireland Executive. In addition, the NICVA report focuses only on one side of the equation and takes no account of the potential impact of welfare reform on local labour markets or of the adverse impact of reductions in departmental budgets as a result of non-implementation. In order to provide some much needed clarity on the impact of welfare reform, I have commissioned an independent review, the terms of reference for which have been draw up by my officials and shared with the Department for Social Development.

Ian Milne: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer. Has there been any cross-party agreement on the terms of reference for the research?

Simon Hamilton: As I pointed out in my initial response, the terms of reference have been drafted by my Department and shared with the Department for Social Development. Whilst I have not got explicit or particular cross-party support for the terms of reference, they touch on a range of subjects that I am sure everyone agrees need to be looked at. They include the policy implications for the Northern Ireland Executive of not maintaining welfare parity; an assessment of the modelling assumptions that currently exist for welfare reform; an assessment of the regional economic impact that the proposed national welfare agenda may have, which includes opportunity costs of forgone public expenditure due to penalties; and the additional consequences that might flow from continuing to deviate from national welfare reform policy, including the implications for IT systems and the delivery of social security payments. Those are not all the things that it will look at, but I am sure that there would not be much dissent from any quarter of the House on whether we should look at those things and get an independent view.
I was before the Finance and Personnel Committee some weeks ago and was pressed by three members of the Member's party to do work like that. I shared with them the fact that it was already my intention to do work like that, because, whilst the Executive had spoken about doing some work, they had not been able to agree to take it forward, so I thought that, to help to inform the situation, I should do it. I took the Committee's comments as an endorsement of that work. We need an independent review that helps to inform the situation better, because there are a lot of figures floating about out there, not least the many figures being thrown out erroneously by members of his party. The figures that I know that are really starting to bite relate to the fact that, every week that passes, £1·6 million of public expenditure that could help people in Northern Ireland is not helping them, because we are paying welfare reform penalties this year. With every month that passes, £7·2 million is lost to the Executive.

John Dallat: The Minister's two minutes are up.

Simon Hamilton: We cannot tolerate that, and it needs to be addressed as quickly as possible.

Paul Girvan: The Minister mentioned the figure of £750 million that was bandied about in the NICVA report. Why is that figure much lower now?

Simon Hamilton: I think that NICVA is being unfairly tarnished by that. Work was carried out on NICVA's behalf by people at Sheffield Hallam University. That figure is out there and has been cited by many, so it has become somewhat authoritative. From listening to contributions on the radio, particularly that of Seamus McAleavey from NICVA, it has been very clear, certainly in the last fortnight, that some have taken the full figure of £750 million and thrown it out there as being the gospel truth on what is being lost, when, by NICVA's own admission, £500 million of that has already gone from Northern Ireland's budget. There are multiple reasons for that, and they are very clear. Some have been passed because of changes that took place at Westminster that we have no control over, and some have taken place because of decisions in this House.
I see that a former Minister for Social Development is in the House. Some of the reductions in our overall welfare expenditure are the result of legislation that he passed, or perhaps it was his predecessor who started that legislation. I was the Chair of the Committee during that entire period, but it went through when Mr Attwood was Minister. Issues such as the 1% uplifting of benefits, which was lower than had previously been the case, were voted through the Assembly. In many cases and in those cases in particular, the House voted for them. Some of the parties that oppose the passage of the current welfare reform legislation voted through or certainly did nothing to stop those impacts on welfare in Northern Ireland. Therefore, in some respects, with regard to the figure of £500 million out of £750 million — I am not saying that I accept all the figures — there is accountability on the other side of the House for those reductions.

John Dallat: The Minister's two minutes are up.

Dolores Kelly: Minister, I note your acknowledgement that the figure of £750 million is over the four-year period and is not actually wrong, but will the terms of reference for this work include the proposals going through Westminster for changes in childcare and the cap on the cost of welfare coming to devolved Administrations? In other words, will it reference not just current but future cuts?

Simon Hamilton: If we knew what the future cuts will be and had that sort of precise information about the future, perhaps we would do the lottery at the weekend. I assume that the Member is referring to comments made by the Chancellor in the past few weeks. They have to be seen in the context of being pre-election commitments or statements. It will be interesting to see whether they survive after the next election, no matter who is in power. Those things are interesting and show that the future direction of policy on welfare at a macro-UK level will continue to be restraint. That is why we have to get our act together on welfare here in Northern Ireland. 
We have already seen swathes of welfare reform legislation come through, many of which are having a difficult impact on people in Northern Ireland. Some came through in the last Assembly mandate, when the Member's party was in charge of the Department for Social Development. Want I want to see from this work is that the current problem that we face, which is causing budgetary difficulties and political difficulties as a consequence of the budgetary problems, is independently reviewed and assessed. There are a lot of figures out there, and people are saying this and that. We need an authoritative independent review that hollows out the particular set of circumstances that we now face. That is the spirit in which the work has been commissioned. It will be carried out independently, and I hope that the figures and conclusions that come from it will be accepted on all sides of the House, because that is the spirit in which they are being offered. It is a genuine attempt to carve a way through the morass of figures because people are clearly somewhat confused about what the truth is.

Judith Cochrane: It is disappointing that the former Social Development Minister was not so proactive and did not instigate that type of research, meaning that the current Finance Minister has had to step in and do his job for him. How will the Minister avoid the new research becoming an excuse for Sinn Féin and the SDLP further to defer a decision?

Simon Hamilton: The Member is somewhat unfair in her criticism of the previous Social Development Minister, who did attempt to get work like this done. In fact, well before the summer, at a much higher level, the First Minister initially suggested that the Executive carry out work like this to do exactly what I said to Mrs Kelly, which is to get a genuine hollowing out of all the problems that we face with the current welfare legislation, the economic and social impacts and the cost to the Northern Ireland Executive of not progressing it. Unfortunately, there was a lack of agreement from Sinn Féin to move forward on that. I thought that there was still considerable merit in doing that work, and that is why I have taken it on. It will be copied to Executive colleagues to help to inform their overall deliberations. 
As to the Member's question about this being a cause of further delay, I can assuage her concerns and calm her nerves. This will be a short, sharp piece of work carried out on our behalf. We have gone through a procurement process, and the people are in place and doing the work. I expect that it will take no more than four weeks and that I will have the report in front of me by the middle of November at the latest. It will not run and run so that parties that may wish to procrastinate further can say that they will wait for the outcome; they will have it in their hands within a number of weeks.

Rates: Convergence

Danny Kinahan: 4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether the funds intended for the convergence of district rates will be extended beyond a two-year period. (AQO 6795/11-15)

Simon Hamilton: I am considering the consultation outcomes before finalising the arrangements for next year's scheme. Our analysis to date suggests that the funding allocated by the Executive will deliver a scheme that will help everybody affected for a longer period than two years.
I intend to announce the full details of the scheme in the next few weeks, once my Department has completed the overall costings to ensure that the scheme stays within the budget set by the Executive of £30 million for rates revenue forgone. That work had to wait until the outcome of the non-domestic revaluation was known and will be completed shortly.

John Dallat: Unfortunately, we will not have time for a supplementary question, because that ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to topical questions. Topical question 1 has been withdrawn.

Empty Premises Relief: North Down

Gordon Dunne: T2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how many businesses, particularly in North Down, have benefited from the empty premises rate relief scheme, given that he will no doubt be aware of the burden of business rates on business owners in Northern Ireland. (AQT 1602/11-15)

Simon Hamilton: The Member is right. No matter what town I go to in Northern Ireland, traders and business owners always raise issues about rates.
To answer the Member's specific question, I am very pleased to be able to report that a total of 331 properties across Northern Ireland have benefited since empty premises relief was introduced in April 2012. That means that £1·367 million of rates relief has been allocated to those properties over that period.
We do not have figures by constituency, but 14 properties have benefited in the North Down Borough Council area. That area covers most of the North Down constituency — there is just a little bit of Ards where I live that is not in there, but we will all be one big happy family in a number of months anyway. Therefore, 14 businesses have opened since the inception of the scheme and as a result of my predecessor's initiative.

Gordon Dunne: I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. Will he assure us that he will continue with the scheme?

Simon Hamilton: Some 331 businesses across Northern Ireland have opened as a result of the scheme. It has not just been small businesses. There was maybe a view at the start that the scheme would very much focus on retail, but it has not just been retail businesses, such as corner shops or other small retail units, that have benefited. Cafes, restaurants and a range of different businesses have benefited. One of the biggest beneficiaries was the Marine Hotel in Ballycastle —

Paul Frew: Hear, hear.

Simon Hamilton: — which reopened last year using that scheme. I hear a welcome for that from the Back Benches. As Mr Frew will testify, that has breathed a bit of life back into that part of Ballycastle and has helped to rejuvenate the tourism product in that beautiful part of Northern Ireland. 
I was able to visit a couple of the recipients of empty premises relief in my own constituency last week. Whilst the policy was about filling vacant spaces in high streets and town centres across Northern Ireland, the two businesses that I visited have, between them, taken on a total of five employees. So, those are new businesses that are filling units that were otherwise vacant, but they are also employing people in businesses and new businesses across Northern Ireland.
It is a policy that is working. If we have a situation in which retail is still suffering and there are still vacant units in our town centres and high streets across Northern Ireland, I will want to seriously look at extending that scheme beyond its life, as it is due to run out at the end of this financial year.

Financial Transactions Capital: Projects

William Humphrey: T3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what type of projects are being funded using financial transactions capital this financial year. (AQT 1603/11-15)

Simon Hamilton: The Executive have allocated over £38 million of their allocation for financial transactions capital this year. We have a total of between the high 60 millions of pounds and £70 million, given the roll-forward of cash from last year that we were able to take into this year. So, we had around £70 million of financial transactions capital to spend in this year, and we have allocated £38 million of that.
The projects that are receiving that capital are the agrifood loan scheme, the Northern Ireland Science Park, GP and dental practices for some modernisation work that they are carrying out, a range of housing schemes within the Department for Social Development and, of course, the University of Ulster's relocation project to the Member's constituency of North Belfast. So, a range of projects across different Departments are soaking up that £38 million so far.

William Humphrey: I thank the Minister for his answer, and, obviously, I welcome the investment in north Belfast. Is the Minister concerned that some of the FTC available will not be spent?

Simon Hamilton: I am concerned to an extent that, if we have roughly £70 million of FTC this year — we are allowed to carry forward either 5% or 10%, which works out at roughly £5 million — we should be able to underspend this year, not lose it in subsequent years, and roll it into the next financial year. Whatever way you cut it, there is still a sizeable amount of financial transactions capital that is unallocated, and we are nearly halfway through the financial year. Officials in my Department are actively working with officials in other Departments to get them to come up with schemes that could use that money in-year. That work is proving to have mixed results. Some Departments are very active in coming forward with schemes; others have yet to come forward with any. 
I continue, frequently, to encourage Ministers to open their mind to the possibilities that FTC creates for bringing forward capital projects that might otherwise not be funded from within their budget. I understand that it is different, it is new and it requires Departments to work proactively with the private sector, which is not necessarily what they are used to doing in the delivery of a project. However, this is the way that an increasing chunk of our capital budget is coming. I think that it will be an increasingly active feature of capital budgets moving forward. As that is the case and as we are looking at FTC comprising around 10% of our overall capital budget next year, Departments will have to think up new ways in which that money can be spent. As I say, we are working on a few projects that could take up the remaining allocations from this year, and I hope that we might be able to report some progress in the remaining aspects of the October monitoring round, including capital allocations, which I will bring to the House in the next number of weeks.

Rates Convergence

Sean Rogers: T4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether the £30 million that has been set aside for rates convergence is ring-fenced or part of the ongoing budgetary discussions. (AQT 1604/11-15)

Simon Hamilton: The £30 million has been set aside for rates convergence. I did not get a chance in response to Mr Kinahan, who was cut off in his prime earlier, to knock down some of the myths and erroneous information that were put out by certain quarters of the media last week about the scheme. It was presented, particularly by the BBC, as something that had come out of the blue, as though we did not know that there were going to be issues in the converging of one council with another or, in some cases, the convergence of three councils or, in one instance, of four councils. It was identified a long time ago by the Executive. Mr Rogers's colleague to his right-hand side, from his time as Minister of the Environment, will recall that it was several years ago — I think that it was 2012 — that the Executive first agreed that they would set aside £30 million for convergence, recognising that there would be an impact from convergence on some members of the public and ratepayers. It is money that has been set aside, and it is, in that sense, ring-fenced and will not be affected by any of the issues around the Budget that we continue to negotiate.

Sean Rogers: I thank the Minister for his answer, and, as he said, this was agreed a number of years ago. In the budgetary discussions that are about to take place, is any consideration being given to the possibility that more money might be needed to smooth the transition?

Simon Hamilton: It has not, although there is a provision in the Local Government Act for a review of the scheme, I think, midway through. In my view, that is more about the functionality of the scheme and whether it is working properly and smoothly and having the effect that we want it to have in easing the convergence of one level of rates with another. Obviously, we will have to consider the totality of issues. Funding will come up in that review, but we will have to consider it in the context that it will be midway through a scheme. The scheme is likely to last three or four years; if we go two years forward, it will be in the middle of a phase in our budgeting where it will be incredibly tight and the availability of more cash for a scheme like that — indeed, for any type of scheme — will be fairly limited.

Treasury Bailout

Karen McKevitt: T5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what the process will be for the £100 million bailout referred to in the letter from the Treasury to OFMDFM, given that there is a condition in it that a Budget for 2015-16 must be agreed by the end of October. (AQT 1605/11-15)

Simon Hamilton: I will correct the Member on one point: the letter from the Chancellor was to the First Minister. She is right to point out that there is something that is described as a "condition" in the letter. I do not think the condition that we should agree a draft Budget by the end of this month is a condition; it is something that is consistent. It is a condition in terms of our access to the reserve, but it should not be an onerous condition for the Executive. It is something that we should have done several weeks ago. It is something that I have been pressing for as far back as December last year, when I wrote to Executive colleagues about what I thought would be the ideal Budget process in the lead-up to the next financial year. Unfortunately, that ideal process got overtaken by a lack of movement on issues like welfare reform, which clearly inform next year's Budget. I have been pressing, particularly since the return from the summer break, the need for us to agree not only on a way to deal with the in-year position, which we have done, but on a draft for the 2015-16 Budget so that we can get it out for public consultation and have discussions on agreeing a final Budget towards the end of this year or early next year. That sort of timetable can still apply.
A lot of work has been carried out by my Department to set up the early stages of a draft Budget. There will be headline issues that we will need to discuss, and obviously the repayment of the loan is a factor that will have to be considered in light of discussions on next year's Budget. We would have been working towards the end of this month anyway to get a draft Budget agreed. That allows us to go out to public consultation and will help and inform our deliberations on the final Budget. We hope to have a final Budget in place by the early part of next year. That gives Departments roughly three months to plan for what will be a very difficult Budget next year.

Karen McKevitt: What effect will that have on the Programme for Government? If it does not work out, what is his plan B?

Simon Hamilton: I do not plan to fail. As long as the effort that my party colleagues in the Executive and I put in is met by goodwill and similar effort on all sides, we can agree a draft Budget by the end of this month. How next year's Budget impacts on the Programme for Government is not particularly a direct responsibility for me apart from the targets in the Programme for Government that are directly related to the Department of Finance and Personnel. However, as I said on the programme board for the Programme for Government, a mid-term review of the Programme for Government has been carried out. That will see some new targets introduced, and it will see existing targets extended in light of the fact that we have extended our term by one year. The Budget clearly has an impact on that, because how testing you are of the targets that are already in the Budget will be impacted on by the resources that a Department has. If you want to stretch a Department on a particular target, you have to be careful and mindful of the fact that it will need money to achieve those targets. If Departments are going to take hits to their budgets, as many will next year, perhaps those targets, as they are elongated, should not be stretched in a way that makes them more difficult to achieve.

County Hall, Ballymena

Robin Swann: T6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether he has any information on the future of County Hall in Ballymena, given that the building has seen the removal of DVLA staff, could potentially see the removal of North Eastern Education and Library Board staff and will lose planning division staff because of RPA. (AQT 1606/11-15)

Simon Hamilton: I do not.

Robin Swann: Would the Minister mind finding out, as it is part of the DFP estate?

Simon Hamilton: I am sorry that I do not have instant recall on every building in the extensive portfolio of properties that my Department is responsible for. However, given that the Member has raised it and that it is an issue for him, for the constituency and for those who work in it, I will correspond with him on the proposed future for County Hall in Ballymena.

John Dallat: That concludes topical questions.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Health: Budget Pressures

Roy Beggs: 1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the extent of inescapable budgetary pressures facing his Department and its arm's-length bodies. (AQO 6807/11-15)

Jim Wells: My Department has faced considerable financial challenges in 2014-15, with £160 million of additional resources estimated to be required to balance the books. Some of these have been addressed through the £80 million of additional funding that we received at the Executive on Thursday, but some £70 million remains to be managed. 
The situation does not get any better in 2015-16, with additional pressures in the health and social care system of over £300 million on top of those pressures carried forward from 2014-15. Those will be dealt with through non-recurrent measures. The largest inescapable pressure in this is additional pension costs, estimated to be in the region of £90 million. There are also substantial pressures in 2015-16 in relation to demographic changes, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) drugs, elective care, mental health and learning disability resettlements.

Roy Beggs: Recently at the Health Committee, officials revealed to me that the trusts were on schedule for a deficit of some £130 million but were recently awarded £60 million by in-year monitoring. Would the Minister accept that when pressures first emerged this time last year and were not addressed by the annual Budget process, difficulties with inefficiencies and growing waiting lists were mounting up? We now also understand that there has been an increase in the number of elective operations cancelled because of staff shortages. Would he accept that there are major problems resulting in the failure to manage the finances of the health service?
In my previous capacity, I regularly met the chairs or chief executives of the trusts. In the first three years, they were somewhat relaxed about their budgetary situation and said that whilst it was challenging, they were going to meet their targets. This year, they are telling me that it is extremely difficult.
The reason for that is not inefficiencies as such; it is this radical change in demand that we first saw coming into the system in autumn 2013. That has remained the situation: we are getting more and more demand, and yet our bottom line in increasing budget is only 2%. That is the pressure that is beginning to tell. Efficient, well-managed trusts are telling me that they are finding it very hard to manage. They believe that it is not inefficiencies; it is simply the sheer number of people presenting for treatment.

Pat Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Given the pressures that the Minister outlined, can he give a rationale for the increasing costs in the administration of the Health and Social Care boards?

Jim Wells: The Health Committee, when I was Chair, looked at the issue of administrative costs in the health and social care system in Northern Ireland. The figure that they came up with was 4·1% on a £4·65 billion budget. That compares very well with health authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, internationally.
Any organisation that is administering such a large amount of money and can keep its admin costs down to that level is relatively efficient. However, even if we were to take a percentage point out of that, which would mean a radical downscaling in admin staff, that would not come anywhere near what we need to achieve to balance the books for this year.
There are radical changes ongoing in the health service; for instance, the Transforming Your Care initiative, which requires highly qualified administrators to carry out that change. So whilst we are dedicated in this incoming year to looking at admin charges, I do not think that that is a silver bullet.
It is clear that the problem is increased demand: 6% as far as the clinical aspect is concerned. I met the Ambulance Service on Friday in Limavady and their stats show a 5% increase in demand for their services, so there is no great science involved here. The difficulty is that as society ages and we become more infirm, demand rises. The result is a huge pressure on budgets. I do not believe that it is inefficiency; I believe that it is simply the effect of demand.

Fearghal McKinney: Minister, is it not true that it is not just demand? Given your predecessor's acknowledged waste in the health service, the fact that the health service spent £50 million in the last two years on bank staff, a significant proportion of which did not go to front line services, tens of thousands of cancelled appointments every year, and boards' staff numbers swelled by 25% —

John Dallat: Question.

Fearghal McKinney: — and more in the last two years, what action are you taking to audit across the Department, the board and the trusts to ensure that existing budgets are providing best value for money and best outcomes for patients?

Jim Wells: The honourable Member for South Belfast is correct: we must always look for value for money in expending such a huge budget. As my predecessor said just before he left office, "Is every penny being spent absolutely correctly? No, there will always be opportunities for savings". However, remember that he, in his first three years of the CSR, took £490 million in savings out of the system and transferred it to front line care and more important matters in the budget. This year, we have pledged ourselves to £170 million of efficiencies, and that has caused each trust and the board to examine every aspect of expenditure.
There are certainly more efficiencies to be made, but I do not believe that that will solve our difficulty. I am absolutely convinced that it is the sheer numbers coming through the clinics, the GP surgeries and the hospitals that are causing our problem, and the stats show that. It does not take a genius to work out that, if demand continues to rise at GPs — they have confirmed that — at clinics and at hospitals, and there is more out-of-hours demand, we will inevitably require more money to do it. You can achieve only so much in the way of efficiencies before you end up needing more money. "More money" sounds dramatic, but is only something like 2·2% of the entire budget that we are looking for as extra resource and is not a huge amount in the overall scheme of things. It seems a large quantum because you are dealing with Health, which is the biggest-spending Department in the Northern Ireland Executive.

John Dallat: Before calling the next Member, I appeal to Members to please be brief in their questions, because long questions generate long answers, meaning that fewer Members have an opportunity for their questions to be answered.

Cancer Services: Crisis

Mickey Brady: 2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for his assessment of the reported crisis in local cancer services. (AQO 6808/11-15)

Jim Wells: Over the past decade, we have witnessed significant progress in cancer provision in Northern Ireland, which has led to real improvements in outcomes for patients across a wide range of cancers. A recent Europe-wide study shows that Northern Ireland cancer survival rates for lung, breast and prostate are the best in the UK. These improvements have been brought about through investment in cancer services and by a major refocusing on how the service is delivered. We have established cancer targets, instigated extensive reforms and invested in the staff and infrastructure necessary to bring our cancer services up to the standard expected of a modern high-quality health service. We have also been able to provide better access to a wide range of evidence-based treatments, including drugs and radiotherapy.
The improvements have been impressive, but we must not be complacent. They have all been achieved against a background of increasing demand. Since 2009-2010, the number of patients receiving treatment for cancer after an urgent referral has increased by 42·3%, which again emphasises the point that I made earlier. With an ageing population, that figure is likely to increase. It is predicted that, by the age of 75, one in three in Northern Ireland will have cancer.

Mickey Brady: I thank the Minister for his answer. On a recent 'Spotlight', consultants raised concerns around cancer research. How does the Minister respond to those concerns? Go raibh maith agat.

Jim Wells: I watched that programme twice on the iPlayer just to make certain that I had picked it up correctly. I also met Mr Allister Murphy, who was one of the main, very articulate spokesmen on behalf of cancer sufferers. I met him in my office here at Stormont. Some very strong points were made, but, as he knows, before that programme was made, we had instigated the individual funding request (IFR) review process. We are looking at the whole individual funding request mechanism to see whether the exceptionality test is fit for purpose in the present situation. That is due to report to me at the end of November, so that is how urgently we take the issue. At the moment, that is the best vehicle to deal with the issue rather that instigating other measures.
I do not know what that report will say, but it may deal with many of the issues that the Member has raised. Remember that we, as a society, have increased our spending on drugs by £30 million, and a large percentage of that has been on cancer drugs. The outcomes indicate that we are doing very well, and, most importantly, for the first time in Northern Ireland's history, more people are now living with cancer for five years after diagnosis than have passed away.
It is moving from being a very life-threatening condition to a long-term one. Of course, there are still many who have had the trauma of receiving very bad news indeed, but the movements are in the right direction. I congratulate the staff at the Belfast City Hospital cancer centre and all the clinicians who have done so much to take us to the forefront on these issues. We can do better, but this is a good news story. When I was young, which was a very long time ago, as you know, Mr Brady, 82% of those who had leukaemia in childhood passed away. Now, 82% are alive after five years. We have made real, major changes. Investment in cancer services over the last 10 years has been considerable, including, of course, the opening of the new cancer centre, in which we invested £70 million.

John Dallat: The Minister's two minutes are up.

George Robinson: Will the new cancer unit at Altnagelvin hospital relieve some of the cancer service pressures in Northern Ireland?

Jim Wells: Even the Chair of the Health Committee had a small smile on her face when I announced this morning that the radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin in Londonderry will open on time in 2016. I know that that is of great benefit to Mr Robinson's constituents in Limavady and other areas. Not only is that good news for the north-west, it is good news for Northern Ireland. By 2015, the City Hospital cancer unit will be at full capacity, so Northern Ireland plc will not have sufficient spaces. 
It is also good news for the people of the Irish Republic. Cancer sufferers in places such as Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim will no longer be forced to go the whole way to Dublin; they can go to Altnagelvin for their treatment. This is a good example of the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland working together on an issue of common concern. It shows that it is not a one-way process. The Irish Republic is sending patients to us, and we are sending patients to places such as Our Lady's in Crumlin. I welcome this. It is full steam ahead. To be honest, I could not go back to Londonderry having not made that announcement — I think that I would have been hounded out of the city. When I go back this week, I think that it will be a very welcome process. I really look forward to the cutting of the ribbon for this wonderful facility and hope that I am still in office for that.

Dominic Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an méid a dúirt sé go nuige seo. Cuirim fáilte roimhe chuig an chéad Tráth na gCeisteanna seo aige. I thank the Minister for his answers and welcome him to his first Question Time. In light of what has been said, what is his assessment in economic and health terms of formally establishing a cancer centre of excellence here in Northern Ireland?

Jim Wells: As I said earlier, the outstanding work at our centre in Belfast City Hospital has led to huge changes in survival rates. I am glad that he did not ask me to answer in Irish; the only Irish I have is Bord na Móna. Therefore, I will answer entirely in English. 
We have achieved so much already using the resources that we have: we have managed to attract from throughout the world some of the top consultants and experts in the field; Queen's University is a world leader in research and development in the field; and we have some top PhD students doing tremendous work. Where we are is not perfect, but it is a long way from where we were before we opened the centre. We are making progress, but we have to be cognisant of the fact that people get terribly bad news, so it is not all plain sailing. Unfortunately, some people have to face the ultimate reality. 
I pay tribute to the four Members who contracted cancer and had the courage to go public and tell of their journey: Jimmy Spratt, Paula Bradley, Oliver McMullan from East Antrim and Seán Rogers. They have come forward, explained their journey and shown that there is hope. I hope that we can give them all a 30-year contract, review their situation at the end of that and that they will be with us for many years.

Tom Elliott: I thank the Minister for that. I also congratulate him and welcome him to the post of Health Minister. Do any statistics show a higher incidence of cancer in some parts of Northern Ireland than in others?

Jim Wells: I know that MLA McCarthy and several others who represent east Down have indicated their concern about the presence of Sellafield and clusters of cancer that, they believe, have arisen from that installation. I have to say that the statistics do not really bear that out. The MP for South Down, Ms Ritchie, and her predecessor, the late Eddie McGrady, have also asked parliamentary questions about that. The statistics seem to show that the incidence is no different from that in other parts of the United Kingdom or the rest of Northern Ireland, and that it relates to other factors, such as lifestyle choices, with smoking, and so on, being the main determinant of cancer. We watch those statistics with extreme interest, but, as things stand at the moment, we cannot be definitive in that respect.
Of course, there is the underlying geology of places such as south Down, where radon gas is a problem, but that is well known. We do not yet know about man-made influences, but the truth is that the quick hit — the low-hanging fruit — in Northern Ireland to stop cancer in many cases is to stop smoking. We lose about 800 people a year to lung cancer in Northern Ireland. Some 85% to 90% of those are people who were smokers, and many of the rest were exposed to passive smoking. That is how we save lives, and that could be done at minimal expense.
I had a friend in Downpatrick who recently died from lung cancer. I saw what that lady went through in the last six months of her life. She admitted that her heavy smoking had caused that terrible illness. We need to concentrate on that rather than on studies that, frankly, do not show a positive or negative correlation either way.

Ulster Hospital: Pressures

Leslie Cree: 3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for his assessment of the pressures at the Ulster Hospital. (AQO 6809/11-15)

Jim Wells: Since 2011, the Ulster Hospital has seen an increase in emergency department attendances and emergency admissions, again confirming my earlier point. The South Eastern Trust has advised that admission rates in the current year to date represent a 2·7% increase on the same period in 2013-14. There has been an improvement in the trust’s performance against the 12-hour emergency department target for 2013-14, with 1,092 patients waiting longer than 12 hours, which is almost half the equivalent number for 2012-13. Performance against the four-hour target fell slightly to 70·5%, compared with 73·1% in 2012-13.
It is unacceptable to me that anyone should have to wait unduly at A&E. Whilst 12-hour waits have not yet been eliminated, there is evidence that progress is being made. The number of 12-hour waits has reduced significantly, with only 46 people waiting longer than 12 hours in the first four months of the current year, 2014-15. The percentage seen within four hours has also improved, with an average of 76% in the first four months of 2014-15. I am looking to the Health and Social Care Board, working with the trust, to ensure that progress in delivery against those agreed standards continues. I congratulate and thank the staff of the Ulster Hospital for tackling the issue and making solid progress.

Leslie Cree: I thank the Minister for that information. It is very helpful. Minister, can you tell us approximately how many serious adverse incidents (SAIs), as they are referred to, there have been in the Ulster Hospital over the last number of years? Can you give us a commitment that, when you get questions for written answer on the matter, we will get a prompt reply, rather than the Department stalling and thinking up reasons to prevent it answering those questions quickly?

Jim Wells: I am aware of concerns expressed by the Member and others representing Strangford and North Down that SAIs are collected at trust level and not by individual hospitals. There is a question for written answer before me at the moment, and I have turned that around immediately. It has ruined several Saturday nights for me having to answer those questions from the Member and many others. I understand where the problem arises, but the difficulty is that, if there are fewer than five serious adverse incidents, you run the risk of revealing the identity and personal circumstances of the individuals concerned.
I must say that I thought the Member raises a valid point. I am going to go back to the officials, because doing it for the South Eastern Trust would indicate that it could be in Downe Hospital, Lagan Valley Hospital or the Ulster Hospital, and that is not the level of information that he expects. That seems to be why he is not getting the specific information that he requires. I am going to have a look at that, because I think that he has made a valid point.

Gordon Dunne: I thank our new Minister for his very intensive answers today. Can he give us an update on the ongoing capital scheme at the Ulster Hospital, which will, I understand, include a new A&E unit?

Jim Wells: I know that the honourable Member for North Down lobbied my predecessor very heavily on that particular issue. He is very much a defender of the Ulster Hospital. I have no doubt that will continue. 
Work on the first phase of the latest redevelopment programme is ongoing and will provide a new £115 million generic ward block at the Ulster Hospital. That new ward block is due to be completed in late 2016 and open to patients in early 2017. We will make certain he gets an invite to that opening. It will provide 288 beds, comprising 12 inpatient generic wards, surgical and medical, each with 24 en-suite bedrooms. There will also be day surgery, endoscopy, and four day surgery and three day endoscopy theatres, pharmacy and support services. 
The second phase of the redevelopment programme will see the construction of a new £108 million acute services block. Enabling works started in August 2014, with construction due to start on site in autumn 2015 and scheduled to be open to patients in early 2018. The new acute services block will provide 150 beds, including acute observation assessment beds, an acute assessment unit, acute wards, an emergency department, imaging, new emergency parking, and kitchen, dining and support services.
I hope, Mr Dunne, that indicates a huge commitment by the Department to the people of North Down and Strangford. Despite very difficult financial circumstances, the capital budget has ensured that the people of North Down and Strangford are very well catered for at the Ulster Hospital.

Sean Rogers: As a South Down colleague, I welcome the Minister to his first Question Time.
Minister, in terms of the pressures on services at the Ulster Hospital, do you believe that enhanced GP services and opening more beds at Downe Hospital would help to alleviate some of those pressures?

Jim Wells: The honourable Member for South Down has sat with me, when I have been wearing my other hat, in many meetings on that issue. He is aware that the problem at Downe Hospital is not one of resources; the problem is attracting middle-grade doctors to staff the hospital at particular times. All attempts by the South Eastern Trust's personnel department to get experienced doctors to apply and work at Downe Hospital have been largely unsuccessful. 
Personally, I am convinced that the information that I am getting on this from the chief executive of the South Eastern Trust is correct. I have been shown just how few people are applying. I know that I got myself into very serious trouble by saying this to a packed public meeting in St Patrick's Grammar School about a year ago, but I am still convinced that, in the absence of middle-grade doctors, we cannot continue to treat patients. Technically, it is illegal. We cannot do it. Therefore, until we solve that problem, we will have to divert patients to the Ulster Hospital, with all the difficulties that causes. It is not a lack of will by the board or the Department to ensure that those staff are attracted.

Integrated Care Partnerships

Jonathan Craig: 4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an update on the progress being made on integrated care partnerships. (AQO 6810/11-15)

Jim Wells: Integrated care partnerships (ICPs) work as multi-sector collaborative networks of health and social care providers that come together to respond innovatively to the assessed care needs of local communities. The initial focus of the 17 integrated care partnerships, which were established in September 2013, is on the frail elderly and aspects of long-term conditions, namely, diabetes, stroke care and respiratory conditions. 
ICPs have been engaged in reviewing care pathways in their respective local areas and have identified opportunities to enhance service provision for citizens of Northern Ireland. Examples include provision of specialist information to GP practices on care for patients with long-term conditions; increasing provision of structured education programmes for patients with type-2 diabetes; development of an integrated role for third sector organisations in supporting older people in the community; and collaboration with the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service on its approach to handling emergency calls concerning diabetic cases.
I welcome the contribution of all the health and social care providers who are participating in this work to improve the integration of care for patients and service users.

Jonathan Craig: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer and wish him all the best in his new job. I hope that he works every bit as hard as his predecessor. If he does, he will have very little time on his hands.
 
I note that you mentioned the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service. Are you convinced or content that enough work has been done to give the necessary medical information on a patient? Have they enough access to that information when they are called out? A certain level of care is needed for specific conditions that, sometimes, the Ambulance Service is not fully aware of.

Jim Wells: It is a very interesting point that the honourable Member for Lagan Valley has raised and one that, in my five years, two months and six days on the Health Committee, I have not heard mentioned before. I suggest that the best way forward on this is that, if he has specific concerns, he contacts my diary secretary and we meet to discuss the issue. 
It is absolutely vital that Ambulance Service staff have the full information available. As I mentioned earlier, those staff are under incredible pressure, with an increase of 5% per annum. However, it is important that, when collecting a patient, they have the full information required to deal with that patient. Remember, those men and women deal with some of the most horrific and difficult circumstances that any of us could ever face. We need to make certain that, in an emergency, they have the full information. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss that with the Member.

Patsy McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire chomh maith. I am not going to ask him to respond about Bord na Móna. [Laughter.] What impact has the failure to implement Transforming Your Care had on the integrated care partnerships?

Jim Wells: I think that the honourable Member for Mid Ulster has got it totally wrong. I am committed to Transforming Your Care (TYC), as indeed were the majority of the Assembly, including himself, when it was discussed on numerous occasions. 
John Compton's analysis is accurate. It is proving difficult in the present financial situation to deliver all that we want to as quickly as possible. However, Compton said that, if we do not change the way that we do things, by 2020, we will not be able to afford an adequate health service. Far too many people are too far up the ladder of health-care provision in Northern Ireland. We need to give them support so that people are treated at the right level, commensurate with their needs. The partnerships are continuing. It is going to take three to five years to complete, and that remains our ambition. However, the financial pressures that we face today were not evident when TYC was published. We have to be mindful of the potential impact that that could have on the scope and scale of change that may be possible. 
We are going through the very difficult transition period between the publication of 'Transforming Your Care' and its final fruition. The difficulty is that, while that is going on, demand continues to rise, and budgets continue to be flatlined or go down in real terms. That is a challenge. I talked this morning about paediatric congenital heart disease being in my top five. This is also in my top five of issues that we are going to have to deal with. 
The good news is that I ate, slept and drank Transforming Your Care, because it came in during my time as Chair of the Committee. I have had many meetings with John Compton, Fionnuala McAndrew and other senior staff about it and expect that there will be many more to come. We will continue to give it absolute priority.

GPs: Seven-day Access

Judith Cochrane: 5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, given the recent proposal in England, is he working towards seven-day patient access to GPs. (AQO 6811/11-15)

Jim Wells: I thank the honourable Member for the question. It is very appropriate and timely. 
Currently, all patients across Northern Ireland have access to GPs during working hours, which are defined as 8.00 am to 6.30 pm, five days a week. That is supplemented by access seven days a week to the GP out-of-hours service. I am keen to explore how greater flexibility can be provided for patients to access GP surgeries. I already have written to Dr Tom Black and arranged a meeting with him on 23 October to explore this and other issues. Mr Tom Black, of course, is chair of the BMA's Northern Ireland General Practitioners Committee. However, any final decision would have to take account of the significant workforce and financial implications it would give rise to and the consequential additional pressures it would place on the health service budget.

John Dallat: Time for listed questions is up. We now move on to topical questions. Mr Paul Givan is not in his place. I call Mrs Brenda Hale.

Ebola: Northern Ireland Preparations

Brenda Hale: T2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what preparations are being made to deal with the possibility of Ebola cases in Northern Ireland. (AQT 1612/11-15)

Brenda Hale: I congratulate the Minister on his well-deserved elevation.

Jim Wells: Again, that is a very timely and topical question, and I thank the honourable lady for that. 
In order to deal with the potential importation of a case of Ebola disease in Northern Ireland, my officials have been working closely with our counterparts across the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The Public Health Agency is responsible for protecting the public from communicable diseases in Northern Ireland. The PHA has been coordinating with regional planning, in conjunction with the Department and the five trusts. The planning has included the development of patient care pathways by all trusts; preparation for the management and isolation of suspected cases; the accumulation of appropriate personal protection equipment; and the carrying out of staff training. 
In addition, the Chief Medical Officer has sent five letters to the chief executives of the health and social care organisations providing information for all front line clinical staff who may be treating or admitting patients, all infection prevention and control staff, and GPs and practice staff. The letter includes flow charts for use by staff in emergency departments and by staff in primary care for dealing with patients who present with Ebola-like symptoms. The Chief Medical Officer has also written to all schools, universities and further education establishments. 
It is important to note that the UK has robust systems in place for infectious disease control, including at airports and ports. Advice by the UK Border Agency has been circulated to all United Kingdom ports. In Northern Ireland, the Public Health Agency, through its health protection service, has communicated with colleagues covering all sea ports and airports in Northern Ireland, informing them of the current situation and directing them to sources of other information. In order to reduce the risk of international spread of the disease and in line with World Health Organization guidance, the affected countries have introduced exit screening at airports to ensure that individuals who are unwell do not board flights.

Brenda Hale: I thank the Minister for his very informative answer. Can he estimate how many UK health professionals are overseas caring for Ebola patients?

Jim Wells: Yesterday, I had a call from the junior Minister for health in London, and he brought me up to date with the UK-wide situation. I am sure that the Member is aware that an exercise was carried out on Friday in readiness for the potential for Ebola to arrive in the United Kingdom. We believe that there is a small number of UK health workers who are caring for Ebola patients in west Africa. Indeed, the Minister quoted a figure to me yesterday of about 600. That would indicate that between 15 and 20 of those people could be from Northern Ireland. Indeed, given the history of Northern Ireland people in helping those in need in the Third World, it might be more, but that gives you an indication of the numbers that could be involved. 
In recognition that some staff may wish to volunteer to work in the affected areas, the UK Chief Medical Officer recently issued advice to health-care workers advising them to register with the UK international emergency medical register. That will enable an appropriate mix of staff to be selected and trained, with arrangements to follow up and monitor them on their return. As I have mentioned, we reckon that there are about 600 front line staff in countries like Sierra Leone, which, being part of the Commonwealth, has strong UK links. 
The monitoring of this terrible disease is an absolute priority. It has killed over 4,000 people in west Africa. Whilst the ways of contamination are very specific, we have seen health-care workers, who have returned from Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and other affected areas, becoming infected. Therefore, we have to do absolutely everything to ensure that the condition does not spread; but, remember, the vast majority of people coming from west Africa come through airports in London or Dublin. That is where controls have to be effectively exercised to ensure that, when they move on to Northern Ireland, they have already been screened for the dreadful condition.

Paediatric Congenital Cardiac Services: Public Consultation

Gerry Kelly: T3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, following his earlier statement, to outline the purpose of a public consultation if the way forward for children’s heart services has already been decided. (AQT 1613/11-15)

Jim Wells: The honourable Member for North Belfast has vast experience of the Court Service, and he will understand that, when any consultation is carried out —

Gerry Kelly: I have never been held in such esteem.

Jim Wells: I think that he is a world authority on court services, and he is not a barrister. With any consultation, in order to do things legally, you have to have a period when people can reflect.
I have published on the Department's website this morning the full, unabridged report; it is all there. I have read it, my officials have read it and we believe that what it recommends is the best way forward for very critically ill children. However, there may be some important observation during the consultation; we do not know. Legally, we are duty-bound, but we can, of course, make preparations during the consultation period. Then, if the consultation comes back giving it a full bill of health, we can move on.
I remain open-minded. I have to say, Mr Kelly, that my priority is how we deal with some of the terribly ill children whom I have seen over the last three or four weeks. It has broken my heart to sit in rooms and see how ill those children are. I have no party political baggage in this; I will do what is best for those children. If the best place for those children to be treated is Dublin, so be it. There can be no boundaries or difficulties with that. We owe it to the children. They should go to Birmingham or London if needs be. Equally, there will be people in the Irish Republic with other conditions for whom the best care in is here. That is sensible cooperation between two self-governing jurisdictions.

Gerry Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer. Of course, I agree with him that we need the best care for the children involved. However, he will understand that people are worried, because of the transition and the passing over of services, about what services will remain in Belfast from January 2015. Can he explain that?

Jim Wells: A bit like with Transforming Your Care, we will move into a difficult transitional period between the removal of services from Belfast and a greater uptake in Dublin and then, in 18 months' time, the final service provision in Dublin under a memorandum of understanding. That has to be watched extremely carefully. However, remember that, since January 2014, many children from Northern Ireland have already been down to Dublin for congenital heart surgery. As far as we can see, that has generally worked well. Many patients from Dublin have been sent to either Birmingham or London for surgery, so it is an almost international arrangement that we have.
I regard it as absolutely essential to watch carefully to ensure that none of the care of these very vulnerable children is remotely affected for these 18 months. I want to make it clear that Belfast will still be a centre of excellence for cardiology. We are not closing that down. The concern that that might happen was raised during the consultation period. However, I am left with four independent reports that all tell me that the option of Our Lady's in Dublin is the only way forward. I would be negligent to ignore that.

GP Workforce

David McNarry: T4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, apropos his earlier answer to Mrs Cochrane, to explain his plans to manage the ageing GP workforce, with 25% likely to retire in the next few years. (AQT 1614/11-15)

Jim Wells: The honourable Member for Strangford asks a very apposite, topical question. I had dinner on Friday night with the leader of a GP surgery in the East Londonderry constituency, and he made exactly the same point. The sad thing is that the GP route is not seen as an attractive one for young local doctors. Many of them want to be consultants. Many of them want to have career progression at the A&E or hospital level. Nothing surprises me now, but I have seen consultants who look like my grandson. They are so young that it is absolutely unbelievable. People are becoming consultants at 30, 33 or 35. That is very attractive, but, meanwhile, GP surgeries tell me that they are having great difficulty attracting the same young doctors to work for them. 
What I can tell you is that the Department is carrying out a review of the medical workforce to look at issues like that. Undoubtedly, the shortage of candidates presenting themselves for GP cover will be an absolute priority and something that we will have to deal with at university level. On top of that, of course, many of the potential GPs are not here but on Bondi Beach. We lose 50 trained doctors a year to Australia, where the salary and the conditions are much more attractive. That has a profound impact on the pool of experienced medical graduates as well. The Member is pushing at an open door, and it will have to be dealt with as soon as possible.

David McNarry: I hope that we can walk through the door together, Minister. Having heard what you have said — I appreciate what you have said — I need to ask you this: what steps will you take to prevent the closures that are likely to happen due to the fact that we do not have GPs?

Jim Wells: Whilst I accept that GPs are under incredible pressure and the statistics that they have provided me with show an escalating number of patients, remember that Northern Ireland's population is now 1·826 million. That alone puts pressure on doctors. There is no indication of any closures, but, without doubt, there is an indication of very hard-pressed staff. At hospital level, of course, we have had to curtail hours in places such as Downe and Lagan Valley because we could not get the middle-grade doctors. The Member is right to flag this up. We will have problems here, and that is why the review is so timely. We are looking at an intensive study of our workforce to identify where we will get GPs in the future. As I go round surgeries throughout Northern Ireland, unfortunately I see that many GPs look my age. That is worrying. In surgeries, I would like to see spring chickens rather than old roosters, as it were, who are about to retire and, indeed, have made the point that, if they were given an appropriate package, they would go in the morning. That attitude worries me. When you go to hospitals, you see far more young doctors who are keen to advance their career.

Hospitals: Cancelled Operations

Kieran McCarthy: T5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether he is totally embarrassed by the figures quoted in last night’s ‘Belfast Telegraph’, which stated that hospitals have been forced to cancel 9,778 operations at the last minute. (AQT 1615/11-15)

John Dallat: Sorry. I remind the Member that this is Question Time in the Northern Ireland Assembly, not Saturday morning in Hyde Park Corner.

Kieran McCarthy: I implore the Minister to find out and go over the reasons for operations not being performed, because they are in the hospital setting.

Jim Wells: The Member will accept that, despite the enormous difficulties of the recession, the previous Minister invested in 500 more full-time nurses and a 15% increase in consultants and that we are about to appoint 61 new health visitors. The doom and gloom that his party and the Members to my right painted have not come true.
I go back to my early point. We have had a very large increase in demand and a finite supply of experienced staff and facilities. Often, that can lead to a situation where a bed is not available. In an emergency you tend to have to use a bed rather than use it for an elective procedure. The other problem, of course, is that we no longer use the route of the private sector to relieve waiting lists. That is a huge concern for me. So many people were expecting to go to places such as the North West clinic and Kingsbridge for surgical procedure, but that is no longer available because of financial constraints. We are in great difficulty, financially, in health. We still need an extra £70 million. I understand that very little is coming through the pipeline in monitoring rounds, so we have difficult decisions to take, and there will be complaints about those decisions and what affects people. Worrying about that is probably what keeps me awake at 1.00 am. If I had an extra £71 million, I would be sleeping very soundly.

John Dallat: With enough to do, I can get Mr Ross in for a question.

Speak Up, Save a Life: Organ Donation

Alastair Ross: T6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an update on the Speak Up, Save a Life campaign. (AQT 1616/11-15)
This campaign has included the development and production of two TV adverts; two radio advertisements; outdoor posters, which I am sure that we have all seen; online advertisements; Northern Ireland-branded organ donation leaflets and posters; and, of course, an information website. The initial phase of the media campaign ran from 12 February until 31 March 2014. The second phase of the campaign began on 1 June and will run to the end of this month. 
The impact so far has been significant. I know that the honourable Member is taking an interest in this. Since the campaign was launched, there have been 23,148 visits to the website. Before the campaign started, there had been 20,826 new registrants on the organ donor register. That is 598,000 in total. A report that we received on 30 September shows that there have been 2,363 new registrants on the register through the Northern Ireland website. So, this is good news. 
What we really hope will happen is that people like me will voluntarily put their name on the register and that we will have sufficient organs to ensure that everyone is covered and that there is no need for any further legislation. This is the commitment of the previous Minister to try to deliver that, and well done to the 2,363 people who have newly registered. They could save somebody's life some day, and they have to be applauded for that.

John Dallat: Order. Time is up. Before we return to the debate on accelerated passage, I invite the House to take ease while we change at the Table.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

Education Bill: Accelerated Passage

Debate resumed on motion:
That the Education Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure. — [Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Education).]

John O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Comhaltaí as a bheith páirteach sa díospóireacht seo inniu. Aithním, leis an iarratas seo le haghaidh pasáiste luathaithe, go bhfuil gá lena mhíniú ina iomláine agus go bhfuil deis againn é a phlé mar is ceart, sa dóigh is go bhfuil Comhaltaí sásta leis an riachtanas agus lena chinntiú nach iarracht é grinnscrúdú cuí an Tionóil a sheachaint.
I thank Members for their participation in this debate. I recognise that my request for accelerated passage needs to be fully explained and properly debated so that Members are satisfied of its necessity and reassured that this is not an attempt to avoid proper scrutiny by the Assembly. 
I trust that Members now understand the importance of accelerated passage to this Education Bill and accept, in the circumstances, the need to ensure that from, 1 April 2015, we have an education administration system that has a secure legal basis in which to operate and deliver high quality education services to our children. So it is right that we take the time we need to debate, challenge and discuss. 
I welcome the interest that has been shown on all sides of the House, and I thank those Members who contributed. Many specific points were raised, and I shall address as many of them as possible. I shall, of course, write to Members on any issues that I am unable to cover now.
First, I assure the Chair of the Education Committee that it is my intention to keep the Committee fully informed of the progress on the education authority. I have instructed my officials to provide the Committee with regular updates. At the earliest opportunity, I intend sharing with the Committee the full business case, including the proposed structure of the education authority. I assure the Chair of the Committee that at no stage have I ever thought that the Committee will ignore this Bill, and, in fact, I have no doubt that the Committee will carry out its role to full completeness. As I said, I have instructed my Departmental officials to fully cooperate with the Committee. I also reassure her of a speedy turnaround on Committee questions and requests to me and my Department.
A number of other Members made contributions in relation to the reasons, or lack of reasons, for the accelerated passage of the Bill. I fully understand Members' concerns. It is not a decision that I have taken lightly, and I do not believe that the Assembly should take lightly any decision to approve accelerated passage for any Bill. However, in this case, time has caught up with us for whatever reason. Members can spend their time pointing fingers at each other across the Chamber, at the Executive and at whichever political party it suits you to point your finger at, but there has been a collective failure by all parties in the House to agree to ESA and to bring forward a Bill, or amendments to a Bill, that are acceptable to all Members of the House. Some parties have made it their intention to actively lobby against any ESA Bill in the House. 
Mr Kinahan asked me who I have consulted with in relation to the new Bill. Not necessarily in relation to the new Bill, but I have spent the last two years involved in various engagements with political parties, stakeholders, interested parties, individuals and collectives on how we move the education administration forward in this society. There are many different views out there, but what was central to the vast majority of those discussions was that people wanted certainty and wanted to be assured that we would have an administration in place that would steer a steady course and ensure that staff morale is raised and that staff know exactly what their destiny will be and what their roles will be. I believe that this Bill allows for that.
I want to correct a number of assertions made by Mr Kinahan, because I think that it is important, in these matters, for the public record to be correct. First, while the Executive meetings remain confidential, I do not think that I am breaching confidence when I say that, on 25 September, there were no recorded objections to accelerated passage from any member of the Executive. Mr Kinahan also suggests — I accept that he may have been paraphrasing — that I suggested at the Education Committee that there was agreement on ESA. If there was agreement on ESA, I would not be standing here. The ESA Bill would have passed, we would have moved on and we would all be much happier for it. What I did say at the Education Committee, in a response to a question from Mr Lunn, was:
"No. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that we had broad agreement on the proposal in the previous ESA Bill as to how we would construct a new board. It came about from the heads of agreement that were published, I believe, in November 2011."
Maybe I have not checked the minutes properly, but that is the only occasion when I refer to the use of the word "agreement" in relation to ESA. I did not say that ESA was agreed. I said that the proposals in and around how we construct the board were broadly agreed. It is important that the public record has the proper minutes in relation to that matter.
Members raised other concerns about why we have reached this stage and why the Bill has not been approved before now. Mr Kinahan asked why we have one authority instead of three authorities etc. All those matters were widely discussed and debated in my time in the Education Committee and beyond and again by various political parties, interested parties and sectoral support groups, but at no time has anybody come forward with a firm proposal on a three-board model. At no time has anyone come forward with a firm proposal on an alternative model to ESA. 
I have brought forward a single authority because I believe that it is the path of least resistance. I believe that it is a path that will allow us to bring certainty to our education system and our education administration, and I believe that no one loses. Most importantly, no one loses in terms of educational delivery. No one loses within the boards, no one loses on services to schools, our pupils do not lose out on support services and the political parties are not seen to lose face over the positions that they hold around administration in education, and they are quite right to hold very different opinions on all those matters.
The proposal that we have before us today is a compromise on everyone's behalf. We are often lambasted in the House for not compromising. The Executive are often lambasted for not compromising. The proposal before us is a compromise. It allows us to move forward with certainty on education. I would much prefer if we were debating it for longer; the Committee Stage is important for any Bill. However, time has caught up with us. 
I believe that I have set out sound reasons for seeking accelerated passage. I believe that the length of time that we have debated education over several years has allowed the education bodies to be examined from all angles. This is a structural change to education. The services being delivered by the authority will be the same as the boards'. I have outlined where there are minor changes in terms of the board — the appointment of the chair and the teachers committee. Those are laid out in six simple clauses in relation to the structure of education. The services delivered by the boards will not change in any way under the new Bill. 
I recommend that the Assembly accepts accelerated passage in acknowledgement of the fact that I have not brought this proposal forward in any way to dismiss the role of the Assembly and the Committee. That remains vital. However, I believe that the urgency involved in bringing the Bill to reality outweighs the concerns expressed thus far.

Roy Beggs: Before I proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.
Question put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 73; Noes 14.

AYES

NATIONALIST:

Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Byrne, Mr Eastwood, Ms Fearon, Mr Flanagan, Mr Hazzard, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Mr Lynch, Mr McAleer, Ms J McCann, Ms McCorley, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Ms McGahan, Mr McGlone, Mr McKay, Mrs McKevitt, Mr McKinney, Ms Maeve McLaughlin, Mr McMullan, Mr A Maginness, Mr Maskey, Mr Milne, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr Ó hOisín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr P Ramsey, Mr Rogers, Ms Ruane, Mr Sheehan.

UNIONIST:

Mr Anderson, Ms P Bradley, Mr Buchanan, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Foster, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Mr D McIlveen, Miss M McIlveen, Mr McQuillan, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Weir, Mr Wells.

OTHER:

Mrs Cochrane, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mr Lunn, Mr McCarthy.
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Hazzard and Mr Sheehan.

NOES

UNIONIST:

Mr Allister, Mr Cree, Mrs Dobson, Mr Elliott, Mr Gardiner, Mr Kennedy, Mr Kinahan, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Mr McGimpsey, Mr Nesbitt, Mrs Overend, Mr Swann.

OTHER:

Mr Agnew.
Tellers for the Noes: Mr Kinahan and Mrs Overend.
Total Votes   87   Total Ayes   73   [83.9%] Nationalist Votes   35   Nationalist Ayes   35   [100.0%] Unionist Votes   46   Unionist Ayes   33   [71.7%] Other Votes   6   Other Ayes   5   [83.3%]Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That the Education Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.

Education Bill: Second Stage

John O'Dowd: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Education Bill [NIA 38/11-16] be agreed.
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is mian liom labhairt.

Roy Beggs: Order. I ask Members leaving the Chamber to move quietly.

John O'Dowd: Forálann an Bille Oideachais do bhunú comhlachta aonair a chur in ionad na cúig Bhord Oideachais agus Labharlainne agus a gcuid Coimisiún Foirne. The Education Bill provides for the establishment of a single body to replace the five education and library boards (ELBs) and their staff commission. Local government reform is the context. 
Our five education and library boards are defined in the Education and Libraries Order 1986 by links to the 26 local government districts. Those 26 districts will be replaced on 1 April 2015 by a new model of 11 councils. If we do not agree and implement a new future for education administration from 1 April 2015 — or as soon as possible thereafter — the legal basis for our education and library boards’ responsibilities and their governance arrangements will be significantly less secure than ever intended. 
I believe that a Bill to replace our five education and library boards with a single authority is the best solution. I believe it to be the most efficient and effective way of providing administrative arrangements for education that are compatible with the new local government structures effective from 1 April 2015. A single education authority will overarch the issue of compatibility with local councils, and it will have much of the strength of the business case made for the Education and Skills Authority (ESA), which promised £185 million of savings over the next 10 years. 
By contrast, a future that does not involve the complete amalgamation of the five ELBs will require increased investment, given the current depleted and unsustainable nature of the existing boards. It will also require potentially complex and contentious agreements around territory and boundaries. It will represent the costly re-entrenchment of the pre-RPA system, purely for the reasons of technical compliance with local government. 
The Bill is, therefore, minimal, in the interests of securing consensus, and delivers only structural and technical change. It is a short Bill, providing for a single Education Authority (EA) that retains the responsibilities of the education and library boards as provided for in existing legislation, including employer responsibilities. Otherwise, employer responsibilities in the education system will be unchanged.
The Youth Council, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) will be unaffected. The case for a staff commission to serve multiple ELBs does not apply, so that body will be dissolved, with its functions being absorbed by the single authority.
Alongside the Bill and its establishment of the Education Authority, I have also agreed with the Executive that, as part of the reorganisation of education administration, my Department will fund a new organisation to provide support for controlled schools. The functions of that body, as agreed by the Executive on 9 September 2014, will include: providing a representational and advocacy role for controlled schools, including advice and support in responding to consultation exercises in respect of education policies, initiatives and schemes and in regard to relationships with the Department, the Education Authority and other Departments; working with schools within the sector to develop and maintain its collective ethos, including, where appropriate, a role in identifying, encouraging and nominating governors and ensuring that ethos is part of employment considerations; working with the Education Authority to raise educational standards; participating in the planning of the schools estate; assessing ongoing provision within the sector; participating in area-based planning coordinated by DE and the Education Authority, including membership of the Department's area planning steering group; engaging, where appropriate, in strategic planning processes, including community planning; and building cooperation and engaging with other sectors on matters of mutual interest, including the promotion of tolerance and understanding.
I turn to the content of the Bill. There are six clauses and four schedules, as follows. 
Clause 1 provides for the establishment of the Education Authority and applies schedule 1, which puts in place arrangements for membership and governance of the authority, most of which are standard. The title Education Authority has been used instead of Education Board to avoid the potential for confusion throughout the education Orders due to the many references they contain to the board of governors of a school.
Clause 2 provides that the functions of the Education Authority will be the transferred functions of the education and library boards.
Clause 3 dissolves the ELBs and their staff commission and, with schedule 2, transfers their assets, liabilities and staff to the Education Authority.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 and schedules 3 and 4 cover the usual matters of amendments, repeals, interpretation and commencement.
In only two respects does the Bill provide some element of significant change. There are two areas where simple continuation was practically not an option. The first area concerns the provisions that govern the chair and membership of the new authority. The Bill proposes that a chair be appointed by the Department of Education rather than elected by members. It also proposes that there be19 members, comprising a balance of political members linked to party strengths in the Assembly, community members and members drawn from transferors and trustees. Those arrangements differ from those that have provided for ELB chairs and members since 1986, which would not be suitably wieldy or precise when applied to a regional-level authority. Nor would they apply modern standards of governance.
Of course, the Bill retains the weighting effect of the provisions that have applied to the balance of transferors and trustee members within the ELBs since 1986: it provides for four transferors and three trustee members. Otherwise, it provides for a compact total membership of 20, inclusive of one chair, eight political members that are established by reference to party strengths in the Assembly and four community members. Those arrangements resemble the provisions agreed for ESA, which was an agreed and fit-for-purpose model for the governance of regional-level education administration.
The second area where some change has been necessary is in the teaching appointment committees. Those have operated in the five ELBs and have been directly involved in teacher appointments in controlled schools in their respective areas. The new membership provisions and the issues of scale that are presented by a regional organisation mean that those arrangements cannot continue. The Bill provides that new arrangements will be developed by the new authority in a teaching appointments scheme, which will require the approval of my Department.
That is the extent of the Bill. Despite the two necessary changes that I have summarised, the Bill is best and most accurately understood as being the minimal legislation required to create a single board in place of the five we have.
Should we return to the issue, a single authority will be consistent with, and provide a platform for, fully implementing the RPA in education.
In the meantime, the Executive have agreed to withdraw the commitment to establish the ESA from the 2011-15 Programme for Government. I shall not, therefore, move the Education Bill 2012 to the next stage.
I acknowledge that some Members may wonder why we cannot have other provisions in the Bill or why the new Education Authority cannot have wider powers, for example to promote improved standards in schools or to support professional development etc. The intention had always been that the Education Bill 2012 would have delivered such provisions and that it would have completed its passage in time for the ESA to be established long before the reform of local government in April 2015.
I proposed considerable concessions in pursuit of agreement to progress the 2012 Bill, but, regrettably, my efforts were not successful. We now face the imperative provided by the timetable for local government reform. There is no "do nothing" option in this case; we cannot continue with our current structure of education administration. The present Bill, therefore, delivers only the structural and technical change required to comply with local government reform.
There will be future opportunities to pass legislation that will further benefit and improve the education service, but to include further provisions in this Bill would risk not securing the consensus that we need to secure the immediate future of our education administration.
Molaim an Bille don Tionól. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Michelle McIlveen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. With your permission, I will initially make a few remarks as Chairperson of the Committee for Education and then as a DUP MLA.
Two years ago, almost to the day, my predecessor, Mr Mervyn Storey, stood here and made his Second Stage speech for an Education Bill. He said at that time that it was a bit like déjà vu all over again. He was, of course, referring to the second Education Bill in the space of around three years, and here we are again.
Last time, the Chairperson of the Education Committee picked out the many differences between the ESA 1 and ESA 2 Bills. This time, the Bill that is before us could hardly be more different from those that went before. For a start, it is considerably shorter. It simply dissolves the five education and library boards and the staff commission and replaces them with a single education authority. All duties, obligations, responsibilities, staff and assets are – if we understand correctly – to transfer from the old education and library boards to the new Education Authority.
Unlike the previous Education Bills, this Bill will not alter the employment arrangements for teaching staff, except to simply transfer those working for one of the old five ELBs to the new Education Authority. The old questions about employers, employing authorities, tribunals and agency simply do not apply to this Bill. It appears to change nothing for voluntary grammars and nothing for schools generally in respect of the vexed questions about employment and management schemes.
The Bill dissolves the ELBs and the staff commission and leaves the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools in place, together with its duties in respect of planning for the Catholic maintained education estate. As Members are aware, the Minister is to establish a controlled schools sectoral support body, which is to have a role in area planning. Members of the Committee welcome the new body and generally see this as a fairer way to plan for our schools.
That said, I expect that some Members are disappointed that the Bill does not set out and guarantee the role for this new body in statute. I think that some other Members may also be unhappy that the Bill did not simplify educational planning by dissolving the CCMS. Others may also highlight today the absence of a statutory sectoral support body for voluntary grammar schools.
Schedule 1 sets out the composition of the board of the Education Authority; this appears largely to match those arrangements in the existing ELBs. This differs a little from that proposed in the previous Bill. Members of the Committee highlighted concerns in respect of the absence of explicit or guaranteed representation for integrated, Irish-medium and voluntary grammar schools on the board of the authority. The Committee considered evidence from stakeholders suggesting representation for those groups, groups representing young people and for organisations representing business and so on.
I think that the Committee appreciates the benefit of having a small board and understands the difficulty in representing all interests.
I am sure that some Members, particularly at Consideration Stage, will want to say more about representation. In the interim, however, the majority of the Committee probably takes the view that, in the first instance, the Department should, imaginatively and in line with public appointment principles, ensure that the four community representatives are selected to ensure an appropriate and fair level of representation.
The Committee has sought further detail on how the substantial projected savings for the authority are to be realised, particularly as CCMS is to continue to exist. In his response today, perhaps the Minister will set out, at least at a high level, how savings are to be made and bureaucracy reduced through the establishment of the Education Authority. This is of particular interest, because, unlike his ESA proposals, the Committee has not seen the detailed business case for the Education Authority.
To summarise: the argument underpinning the Bill appears to be simplicity. By simply generally replicating existing ELB arrangements in the new Education Authority, it appears that the Minister hopes that this will prove to be uncontroversial and, therefore, acceptable. The Minister indicated to the Committee and has repeated today that he believes that this simple foundational Bill could be used to drive an incremental reform of educational administration. The Committee has not taken a formal view on this longer-term way forward. That said, I think that Members generally favour an incremental and agreed strategy, in contrast to what some characterised as the Department’s previous all-encompassing approach to educational administration, which was doomed to failure.
In taking things forward with the Education Authority, I hope that the Minister will give thought to those uncontroversial spin-offs identified from the previous legislation — for example, the options to improve autonomy for some controlled schools to allow them to appoint their own principals and perhaps hire a bursar to improve financial performance. In the longer term, perhaps the Bill may also allow for the simplification of what is a fairly complex and much-amended body of education legislation, the idea being to allow for a higher and commensurate level of delegation to schools.
As my predecessor in the Committee also said two years ago, any education Bill is usually yet another cause for consternation for many in the education sector: principals, teachers, boards of governors and others. Whatever way this Bill progresses, on behalf of the majority of Committee members, I hope that the House’s sober deliberations will provide certainty to those whom I have just mentioned and reassurance that we all have the best interests of school pupils and their parents at heart. I believe that the majority of Committee members feel that the Bill is simple and introduces very limited but important changes. The majority of Committee members, therefore, are probably just about content to support the Bill’s progress to Consideration Stage.
Speaking as a DUP MLA, I want to say that this is a significantly less complicated Bill than were the two previous Bills, but it is no less significant. While the legislation does not see the establishment of an education and skills authority with broad, sweeping powers, it does see the dissolution of the five current boards and the creation of what is, essentially, a single education board. A number of issues require clarification as the Bill progresses. There is the issue of the controlled sector representative body. The announcement that there will be such a body is, of course, to be welcomed, and its establishment would merely right a wrong in education. The controlled sector has been shamefully ignored in this regard for far too long. It is to be hoped that the creation of this body will bring equality to the controlled sector, 25 years after other sectors were granted their support bodies.
I welcome the Minister's comments today about how this sector will be supported, but it must not be a toothless organisation. It must have legislative underpinning and be specifically mentioned in the Bill. It is important that this is done, because the Minister has to appreciate that there is a lot of nervousness in the sector. It is a natural consequence of years of uncertainty hanging over education, particularly in the last seven years. The Minister previously gave a commitment that the funding of this body would be enshrined in the Bill. Again, at the Executive and in Committee, a commitment was given that there would be robust underpinning. Up to this point, the Minister has talked a good game, but we need to see that assurance on paper.
We, as a party, are not looking for the creation of a statutory body. I do not believe that anyone wants yet another statutory body to be created for education in Northern Ireland. However, unless the body is placed on a robust footing, the consequence will be great distrust and unease in the controlled sector. It is essential that this sector is afforded equal treatment, which has been a recurrent theme for my party over the last seven years.
The announcement of the body was welcomed across the sector, but that welcome has waned and is turning to distrust as the perception increases that the sector is once again being treated in a somewhat inferior fashion. The integrated sector, which educates only 7% of pupils, has robust underpinning for its sectoral body under the 1989 Order. All that the controlled sector is asking for, and all that we ask for on its behalf, is equality. I would like the Minister to bring forward proposals in order to allow the controlled sector and Members to assess whether they are fit for purpose.
The Minister needs to appreciate that a failure to place this body on a footing on a par with other sectoral bodies will cause it internal difficulties. That is particularly true of recruitment, especially to senior posts. The uncertain nature of the body is not conducive to recruiting the best people for those posts. 
The second key issue — the Minister is aware that I raised this with him at the Education Committee — is the appointment of the chief executive of the Education Authority. For the wider community to have confidence in the new authority, it is paramount that a clear message of independence is made. It is important that the appointment of the chief executive is an open and transparent process, and not a coronation. 
The Bill provides that the first chief executive is to be appointed by the Department. The Minister has explained that the rationale for that had to do with the timescales surrounding the appointment of the board. The timescale, as we have been aware through the accelerated passage debate, is understandably tight, but the preferred option, from my perspective, is the appointment of an interim chief executive, with the final appointment being made by the board of the authority when it has been established. The recruitment processes for the appointment of the interim chief executive and the permanent appointment need to enjoy the full protection of a robust public appointments process. They must be open recruitment processes. 
The Minister told the Committee that he was minded to appoint a chief executive for a set period, and then the board would make an appointment. I would like that to be reflected in the Bill. I would not like the first chief executive to end up in post for 10 or 15 years without any input from the board. I want to see the board's involvement in the process at the earliest possible opportunity. 
After a number of false dawns, the disasters of the first two Bills, and the uncertainty and mistrust caused by the Department's handling of that legislation, it is important that this legislation is unambiguously fair. We also need to be assured that the Bill will deliver savings. It should not be one board run as five; there need to be meaningful savings. 
I mentioned in the earlier debate that the existing ELBs have been limping along for some considerable time. The hundreds of voluntary severances, in conjunction with the vacancy controls that have been in place, have impacted dramatically on their efficiency and operability. It is important to stabilise the staffing arrangements. We are not seeing the structure or delivery mechanisms of the new organisation. It is important that what is being created is an efficient, streamlined and effective organisation that is capable of delivering savings and, most importantly, services. I would not like to think that the Minister is rushing through the legislation with no view of how the final organisation will look or be effective.
Obviously, savings are important, but this all needs to be for the greater good of education. It needs to be recognised in the House that the creation of a single authority is what the key stakeholders want and realise is required for education. The change is needed to create the mechanism that should allow the maximum amount of the budget to go directly to the education of our children. I want to ensure that that is the case. For many years, too many layers of bureaucracy ate up the budget, and that must be avoided in the new body. 
I certainly hope that all parties involved in today's debate have taken the opportunity to liaise with those who matter in education. I, my predecessor, my party colleagues on the Education Committee and my wider party colleagues have all taken that opportunity. We have made an informed decision to support the principles of the Bill, and we will continue to make those informed decisions as the Bill progresses. It is not ESA or ESA lite. It is what the sector wants.
As I said in the earlier debate, that is what the DUP recognised back in 2008 when we put forward strikingly similar proposals. The former Chair of the Education Committee Mervyn Storey deserves a great deal of praise — it is not because he is sitting directly behind me — for advocating so strongly on behalf of the controlled sector during his tenure to ensure that it was treated fairly, which certainly would not have been the case under the proposed ESA. Some parties in the Chamber may lament the demise of the ESA Bills, but my party does not.
There will undoubtedly be a great deal of discussion around the Chamber about who should be represented on the board of the new authority. While I am more than content with the representation being given to the controlled sector as of right, as the make-up of the board will broadly reflect existing boards, it is difficult to dismiss out of hand the arguments in favour of the voluntary grammars having representation on the board. That is a sector that teaches 32·9% of our post-primary children and owns a huge acreage of the schools estate. For such a sector not to have a voice on the board, which will be dealing with area-planning issues, appears bizarre. I would like to hear the Minister's thoughts on that.
In all of this, when we talk at a high level about reorganisation and budget restraint, it can be too easy to forget about the staff in the existing ELBs. I pay tribute to the work that they have done in the delivery of education, particularly during the many years of uncertainty and upheaval that they have had to endure. To undertake their work in such trying circumstances is a tribute to their fortitude and diligence. Periods of change are always difficult, but in circumstances in which that change has been mishandled at a departmental level, to the extent that the boards have been chronically understaffed for so long, I think that the staff require a particular note of gratitude. Although I say "departmental level", I may want to look towards the political end of that spectrum, too.
Front line services have also been under significant pressure. Praise needs to be given to the staff and head teachers of schools across Northern Ireland at this time of transition. It has been incredibly difficult for those schools with the uncertainty that exists above them. I hope that the passage of the Bill will afford them the certainty that they crave.

Mervyn Storey: I thank the Member for giving way and for her — albeit ill-deserved — comments earlier. An issue arises out of this about the way in which we do policy in the Chamber and the Executive. Clearly, the vacancy control mechanism that was introduced by the previous direct rule Ministers had an intent to force through legislation that, clearly, seven years later, did not have the consensus of those whom we endeavour to serve. Rather than Departments setting out their stall and then trying to achieve that by vacancy control, which led to the deletion and delineation of services in the education and library boards, there should have been a more pragmatic view taken as to how policy, practice and deliver were achieved.

Michelle McIlveen: I thank Mr Storey for his comments. I think that he will agree with me when I say that the Bill is not yet the finished article. Work will need to be done on it, but we have come a long way from the previous ESA Bills. I will support the Bill at Second Reading, but I hope to see the issues that I have raised being addressed.
I will just make a final comment about the comments that were made in the earlier debate by Mr Kinahan. I sat on the Education Committee from 2007 until last year. I have had the experience of numerous UUP education spokesmen on that Committee. I also experienced the two previous Education Bills as they came through the Committee. Nothing that I heard from any of those spokesmen ever filled me with any confidence that they actually knew what they were talking about.
Nothing I heard from that party's current spokesperson today has changed that view. The revisionist approach being taken by the UUP today is worthy of a republican historian. I may have been a politics and history teacher — Mr Agnew in the corner will be able to account for that as a former pupil — [Interruption.]

Roy Beggs: Order.

Michelle McIlveen: — but I do have a grasp of basic mathematics. Mr Kinahan referred earlier to a DUP/Sinn Féin carve up. Simple addition tells us that, if the DUP had been in favour of ESA, that is what we would have today. If the DUP and Sinn Féin had been on the same page on the first or even the second ESA Bill, why would we be standing here today debating a third? Unlike the current UUP spokesperson, I was on the Committee scrutinising the previous two Bills. At no stage was there anything constructive by way of proposals from that party.

Christopher Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Like the last Member to speak, I, too, welcome the opportunity to discuss the Education Bill in a bit more detail this afternoon following the discussion earlier regarding accelerated passage. 
As I outlined this morning, the ongoing delay in establishing ESA has placed huge strain on those who work for the boards and commission. I have no doubt that today's developments will come as welcome news to those who have endeavoured for years to plug the gaps. It is only proper though that, in the debate concerning the need to build a modern, fit-for-purpose system, we recognise and acknowledge the dedication of those who have shown great commitment to improving the educational experience of learners for the best part of the last half century. This dedication has not only delivered many key services but has developed many new approaches and facilitated much improvement during a long and often arduous journey for our education system. 
The Education Bill is undoubtedly a milestone on this journey. I know that some Members spoke this morning about parties surprisingly acquiescing to the demands of the Executive, but, for me, this is not the case. We have all been listening to the messages coming from the front line, our schools and the boards. The message is very clear: we need agreement and we need it now. In light of this, I welcome the clarification from the Minister on arguments that were put forward by some Members, especially around the fact that he will now give the Committee sight of business cases as soon as possible, and also the clarification that, despite protest in the Chamber this morning, the UUP did not, in fact, object to accelerated passage at the Executive. As the Member who spoke last outlined, some serious questions need to be put to the UUP.
Once again, we know what the UUP is opposed to, but we remain totally clueless as to what it is actually in favour of. We used to hear that it was in favour of a single education system, yet it opposes a streamlined single authority that would oversee such a system. Indeed, in a recent debate on pupil absenteeism, the UUP spokesperson, Danny Kinahan, called for urgent action. He said he had had enough of policies and strategies, yet when a much-needed development in education reform comes along, the UUP seeks again to stall and score points against a political rival. 
I challenge the UUP to outline today what it believes in and, if it is so opposed to the process of change, to bring alternative ideas to the table, because all its efforts to outflank the DUP will ultimately fail. More depressingly, it will continue to fail the young people who rely on a fit-for-purpose education system.
The case for change in education is obvious. Our system is characterised by uneven performance with outstanding academic excellence coupled with still too many children leaving school without five good GCSEs. Tasked with modernising the administration of education here in the North, the Bill will see the replacement of an outdated administration system with one that better meets the needs of the 21st century. 
At the core of that reform and indeed the Bill is the foundation of the Education Authority, which will be tasked with overseeing the establishment of a modern, fit-for-purpose administration system. The Bill provides for the establishment of a single Education Authority at the expense of the existing five library boards and their Staff Commission. Undoubtedly, at this point in the evolution of administrative reform, the Bill provides the most efficient and effective way of providing such administrative arrangements that are compatible with the new local government structures that will take effect from 1 April 2015. As outlined by the Minister, the Bill is clearly the minimum legislation that is required to create a single board in place of the five that are currently in operation; an exercise in expediency, perhaps, but a vital change if we are to provide effective and efficient education administration in the years ahead.
As the Minister outlined today, the Bill will provide for two significant changes to administration oversight. The first relates to provisions on membership and the chair of the authority. Despite the fact that the Bill retains the weighting effect of provisions that had previously applied to the balance of transferor and trustee members since 1986, arrangements now resemble the provisions that were agreed for the ESA and reflect an agreed up-to-date model for the governance of regional-level administration.
Secondly, the Bill will signal change in respect of teaching employment committees. The new membership provisions and the issues of scale that are now presented by our regional organisation mean that those arrangements can no longer continue. The Bill outlines that the authority will now develop an appointments scheme that will require departmental approval. However, that transformation, thankfully, does not represent a wild stab in the dark for our system. The authority will build on the vast work and experience of the various boards and education bodies as it drives forward to raise standards in the North. 
Embedded firmly in the context of previous Bills brought forward, the 2014 Education Bill reveals a few areas of fresh thinking and demonstrates a mature flexibility in looking at solutions to issues that were previously of concern to stakeholders. In the light of that, I welcome the Minister's commitment today, and previously in Committee, around the controlled sector. I know that that brings comfort to all sides of the House. Members will no doubt talk today about the membership arrangements of the board. Again, that is an area in which we all need to be prepared to listen to the arguments put forward over the next days and weeks as we move into Consideration Stage. Sinn Féin is certainly more than willing to do so. 
We must continue to push forward with determination and commitment to educational excellence. Vested interests and reactionary objections must not hide the real and present need for reform. Dogma must not stand in the way of necessary change. In driving forward with the desire for educational excellence, standing still is simply not an option. The delivery of education in the North has developed over the decades into a system designed around the needs of our schools and institutions, often at the expense of the needs of our young people. Certainly we deliver education through schools, and the needs of those schools are important, but we cannot continue to shape our education service around the needs of buildings. In the light of that, I hope that the new Education Authority can be a strategic body that drives change in the decades ahead. 
I welcome the opportunity today to discuss in general terms the principles of the Bill. In the days ahead, Sinn Féin will continue to engage with interested parties as we prepare for the consideration of the Bill in finer detail.

Sean Rogers: First, I acknowledge all the people who deliver education to our young people; our teachers, our boards and everyone who makes this a better place for all our children. However, after seven years of an education system shrouded in uncertainty, the SDLP welcomes the development of the Education Authority. Young people, their parents and everyone employed in the North's education system have been subject to too many delays. After what NIPSA recently identified as almost a decade of procrastination, we are now faced with a rush to ensure that an education board is in place in time for the establishment of the new super councils. 
Since the Bill for the now defunct ESA arose, the five existing education and library boards have been left in the dark. With the education and library boards set to dissolve next year, uncertainty and lack of direction has seriously affected their capacity to operate and deliver the services that they are tasked with to the highest standard possible. The ESA Bill has been abandoned after seven long years of hard work, and, as was mentioned earlier, £17 million of public money has been squandered. I find it hard to believe that, in the Minister's summing up, he talked about the ESA being a collective failure. It was very difficult for parties other than the DUP and Sinn Féin to know what exactly was going on between the Bill and heads of agreement. 
Area-based planning proved contentious in the Education and Skills Authority Bill. With false starts and ambiguities surrounding the previous Bill, it would not have been right to pursue it. However, one major aspect of the EA's strategic management in upcoming years will have to be area-based planning. It is essential that the Minister gives due consideration to area-based planning and critically reassesses the 2006 Bain proposals. 
The Minister said:
"The reason why accelerated passage is needed for this Bill is that the Executive, the Assembly and I should do all that is possible to avoid the risk of not having the Education Authority in place by 1 April 2015."
To me, that answers Mr McCallister's question from earlier, when he said that accelerated passage should be used only in extreme circumstances. 
You have to acknowledge what is happening in the education world. Our boards are depleted. They can no longer deliver high-quality teacher development and so on. They just simply have not got the resources.

John McCallister: Will the Member give way?

Sean Rogers: Yes, I will.

John McCallister: The point that I was making on accelerated passage was that we are five and a half months away from the start of April. There is time for this to go through a normal process, working closely with the Committee on its standard six-week scrutiny of the Bill. There is plenty of time to do that.

Sean Rogers: I am coming from a different place. I have been working closely with schools, and I see what is happening out there. The boards need road maps, the schools need road maps and the parents need road maps, so that we can move on and deal strategically with education in Northern Ireland. 
It is because of the delays and the money wasted that it is crucial that the new board is constituted to reflect accurately our unique educational landscape. As it stands, the 60 representatives who comprise the education and library boards are to be reduced to 20. A chief executive will oversee the board, with four transferors, three trustees, eight political representatives according to d'Hondt, and four community representatives. That leaves the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta and the voluntary grammars without specific representation on the new board. Instead, they will be forced to clamber for one of the four remaining places.

Mervyn Storey: I thank the Member for giving way. Will the Member accept the argument that, historically, those organisations have never had a place on the education and library boards? People need to understand that this is a board on the basis of the 1986 Order. The organisations that he refers to have always had advocate bodies to which they could have recourse, whereas the controlled sector was totally dependent on its place in an education and library board and was left in the wilderness and did not have that independent voice to represent its views. That is the why the wrong had to be righted.

Sean Rogers: I agree with the former Chair, now a Minister. He still has a keen interest in education. The Minister used the word "platform" on a number of occasions. This could be a platform for a future ESA. If there is going to be that platform, it is important that we have people with the right strategic view around that table. In the Minister's briefing on 30 September, he said that we could end up with a board with everyone sitting on it. That is possibly true, but a board without the guaranteed representation of the three sectors that I have mentioned, which have over 50% of our post-primary population, needs to be attended to. 
On Irish-medium education, there is no legislation that currently obliges the education and library boards to adhere to the Good Friday Agreement, which outlines a duty to encourage and facilitate the development of Irish-medium education. Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta has highlighted the deeply detrimental impact that this has had on the sector in terms of transport, area planning, support for governors etc. It was intended that ESA would have a statutory duty to encourage and facilitate the development of Irish-medium schools by engaging with the sector and giving it true regard, as outlined by article 89 and the Good Friday Agreement. There is no reason why that should not be the case with the Education Authority. The best way to fulfil that is by ensuring that the sector has input at authority level. The duties imposed on the Department under article 89 of the 1998 Order in respect of Irish-medium schools parallels that in respect of integrated schools under article 84 of the 1989 Order. The Department must facilitate Irish-medium and integrated education.
 
Over 40% of our children attend schools in the voluntary grammar sector. They have no input into these arrangements, and the Minister acknowledged that they did not have a lot of input into area planning. If we take another recent survey on the review of GCSEs and A levels, I do not have the statistics, but we will see that about 60% or 70% of our children who are doing A levels attend grammar schools. Should those schools not have input into the system at a strategic level as well?

Steven Agnew: Will the Member give way?

Sean Rogers: Yes, I will.

Steven Agnew: I do not necessarily disagree with him, but does the Member not accept that there is a difference in the responsibilities that the new board will have in respect of voluntary grammars? They have opted out of coming under its full remit, so there is an argument to be made about why they would have a say on responsibilities on other schools when they are not included, if the Member understands my point.

Sean Rogers: I do not know whether they have opted out or not, but I will go back to my original point: this is a strategic authority that will be the platform for the development of education in the future. All chief players should be at the table. Irish-medium, integrated and voluntary grammars need to be there as well. The Minister says that integrated and Irish-medium have a place at the area planning delivery body. However, this is delivery; it is not about the strategic future of area-based planning.
For this reason, the SDLP will table amendments to address these issues. We hope that they will ease the competition for the four community representatives and help to ensure that they accurately reflect the views of the wider community. Establishing a board that is truly representative of our education system is absolutely crucial. We simply cannot afford to waste anything like the money, time and resources that were fruitlessly spent on the ESA Bill. The Education Bill must ensure that the new authority is equipped to protect and enhance Northern Ireland's education system. This will not be possible without the relevant representation and input at strategic level on the board. The Education Authority must be constituted and supported to ensure a sustainable and efficient education system for all our young people, regardless of which sector they attend.

Sandra Overend: When considering the new Education Bill, it is worthwhile pausing for a moment to reflect on what happened to the previous attempts to reorganise education administration in Northern Ireland, namely the Education Bill introduced by Minister Ruane in 2008 and the subsequent Bill introduced by Minister O'Dowd in 2012.
The first Education Bill was introduced to the Assembly on 25 November 2008 and had 55 clauses and eight schedules. The Bill was to make provision for the dissolution of existing organisations and the transfer of duties, functions, assets, liabilities and staff from those organisations to ESA. Those organisations were the education and library boards, CCEA, the Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards and the Youth Council for Northern Ireland. The Bill also made provisions for the dissolution of CCMS and the transfer of certain duties, functions, assets, liabilities and staff to ESA. It passed its Committee Stage on 30 September 2009, some 11 months later.
The second time around, the Education Bill was introduced to the Assembly on 2 October 2012. That Bill had 69 clauses and eight schedules. The Bill was to set up ESA and replace eight existing organisations, namely the education and library boards, the Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools and the Youth Council for Northern Ireland. It passed its Committee Stage on 8 April 2013, some six months later.
I am a new member of the Education Committee, and my first obvious question for the current Minister is this: what happened to the previous two Bills? They seem to have disappeared into the ether after Committee Stage. The Ulster Unionist Party took a negative view of both Bills, but we did not oppose just for the sake of it. We wanted to shape and improve the Bills to meet the objective of a streamlined, fit-for-purpose administrative support body for all schools. That opportunity was shot down.
There have been rumours of behind-the-scenes talks to placate various interest groups. However, while the Assembly waited patiently for the Minister to bring the legislation back to the Floor, the ESA Bill has been quietly buried. One is tempted to conclude that the impetus to short-circuit the normal legislative process by skipping the Committee Stage with a standard consultation with educationalists and others is an attempt to stop a proper post-mortem of the Education and Skills Authority. ESA was a Programme for Government commitment. At the last time of checking, the cost of the Education and Skills Authority implementation team from 2005 to the end of March 2014 was over £18 million. Given the current budgetary shambles, that must be a complete embarrassment for the current Education Minister.
The argument has been put forward that the end of the current district council boundaries and the mandate of some council nominees on education and library boards has necessitated the establishment of a single Education Authority to become operational on 1 April next year. It is argued that this deadline cannot be made with the normal Assembly scrutiny and that accelerated passage is therefore needed. However, I strongly feel that we need answers from the Minister with regard to alternative options. Two are mentioned in the explanatory notes to the Bill, but there may be others that we have not had the opportunity to discuss. While I and my party believe that there was an alternative to rushing through imperfect legislation, it seems that others are content with such action by the Education Minister. Maybe there was another back-room deal, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Education Minister appeared before the Committee two weeks ago and gave a pre-introductory briefing to the Bill. At this stage, I feel that a lot of questions remain unanswered.

Mervyn Storey: Will the Member give way?

Sandra Overend: Yes, certainly.

Mervyn Storey: Sometimes I question the Members in the corner. Does she really believe what she is saying? I expended many years, on behalf of my party, on this issue. The DUP has been clear all along on protecting the controlled sector and giving it its rightful place. Do you honestly believe that my party would accept a back-door deal on something on which it and I had expended well over seven years? Really, does she believe the propaganda that was written for her by the central office of the Ulster Unionist Party?

Sandra Overend: I take offence at that. I have written my own speech, thank you very much, Mr Storey. To be honest, I asked the question; you answer it.

Mervyn Storey: I gave you the answer: no.

Sandra Overend: I will proceed, if the Member is content. The Bill proposes the abolition of the five education and library boards and the formation of one Education Authority, with a board consisting of eight political members, four representatives from the controlled sector, three from the CCMS and four from the community at large in Northern Ireland. There was an opportunity here to ensure that all sectors in the current education make-up in Northern Ireland were represented on the body. We are disappointed that such sectors as the integrated and voluntary grammar school sectors have no input into the authority. The Minister may say that those sectors could have a place, but, in reality, they have no right to a place and may never sit on the authority.
Numerous types of people could be granted one of the four Northern Ireland community places. They could come from the voluntary grammars, others, the integrated sector or trade union backgrounds. Equally, they could be someone who previously worked in the controlled or Catholic maintained sector. What I am saying is this: there could be sectors of our education system that have no input whatsoever to the running of the authority.

John O'Dowd: Will the Member give way?

Sandra Overend: Go ahead.

John O'Dowd: A number of Members have referred to the voluntary grammar sector. The voluntary grammar sector has not approached me for a place on the board. Has it approached you for a place on the board?

Sandra Overend: I will let my colleague answer that, because I certainly believe that the sector has been talking to him. The conversation —

Mervyn Storey: Will the Member give way?

Sandra Overend: Not at the minute, thank you. I challenge the Minister. Conversations are two-way things. Have you spoken to the sector? Maybe the Minister will inform us —

Mervyn Storey: Will the Member give way on that point?

Sandra Overend: Go ahead.

Mervyn Storey: Maybe this is something that the Member could try to find out in discussions with the voluntary grammar sector, and maybe she can tell us when she last met the voluntary grammar sector. Would the voluntary grammars prefer to have what is known as the voluntary principle? Members who were previously on the Education Committee will know how precious that issue is to the voluntary grammar schools in the non-denominational and Catholic grammar sectors. Or would they prefer a place on a board on which they have never had a place since the inception of the education and library boards in 1972?

Sandra Overend: I thank the Member for his intervention. The reason why I want this to go to Committee and through proper consultation is so that all these discussions can be had. The Member and his party have voted against letting the Bill go to that stage.
I will proceed. Will the Minister inform us whether he gave consideration to the Drumragh judgement when drafting the Bill and how he has incorporated that view? We know from recent 'Belfast Telegraph' surveys that the majority of people in Northern Ireland want some form of shared education, yet I see no means of furthering that aim in the Bill. Furthermore, we in the Ulster Unionist Party have serious reservations about the appointment of the chair of the authority. We would prefer that he or she be appointed by the members of the board. That has been mentioned by Members who have spoken, and I welcome that fact.
As Mr Lunn said earlier, the Bill is short and simple; he also said that it was not worth fighting for. My colleague Mr Elliott raised a very valid point in the earlier debate today. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on that. Is the Bill a stepping stone to further legislation to reform the education system in Northern Ireland?
I tried to say something earlier and am raising it maybe more appropriately now. Clause 4(3) states:
"The Department may by order make such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision as it considers necessary or appropriate in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, any provision made by this Act."

Christopher Hazzard: Will the Member give way?

Sandra Overend: Not just at the moment, thank you.
The clause continues:
"Any other order under subsection (3) is subject to negative resolution."
I hope that the Minister will comment on any such further provisions relating to the Bill.
As I said, I am very concerned about the lack of consultation. Anyone whom I have spoken to in recent days at primary or post-primary level is unaware that the legislation is being moved through the Assembly at the moment, and it is unfortunate that there is no opportunity to debate options and the merits of each. I was also amazed to read that the Department believes that there is no need for an equality impact assessment. Surely such an authority should undergo such scrutiny.
In conclusion, questions remain unanswered. The Minister mentioned in Committee that a body would be set up to represent the concerns of the controlled sector, yet there is no mention of that in the Bill. Will consideration be given to the establishment of other sectoral bodies? No real figures are stated on the savings to be made with the establishment of the authority and to the cost of its establishment. I hope that the Minister can provide detail on that.
From the outset, the Ulster Unionist Party has accepted the need to streamline the administration of our education system, with the inevitable savings being passed on to the front line. It is, therefore, unfortunate that the Bill is not being awarded appropriate time for debate and scrutiny. It is crucial that the Bill is reflective of the opinions expressed by stakeholders. Mr Deputy Speaker, it seems that the Education Minister feels that the beauty of the Bill is in its shortness and simplicity, but you and I know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It has already been said that the Bill is short, but it is no less significant. The Ulster Unionist Party will table amendments and looks forward to the Minister's response.

Trevor Lunn: Before I start, I want to comment on the accusation that I said that this was not worth fighting for. I did not say any such thing, and I am sure that Hansard will have reported that. I see Sandra smiling, so perhaps she realises that. What I said was that, at this stage and after seven years, some of us were getting a bit war-weary and would accept almost anything. That does not mean to say that we will not scrutinise the Bill fully and give it the attention that it deserves. That is not quite the same thing as saying that it is not worth fighting for.
It is quite refreshing to be talking in the Assembly about an education Bill, because this is the first time in seven and a half years that we have been able to do that. None of the other Bills made it to the House. Members referred to the 2008 Bill, which was in two parts. It was such an ambitious project that it had to be split, and the Assembly and the Committee were unwilling to accept the first Bill without having had sight of the second. Frankly, we thought that all the bad bits would be loaded into the second Bill.
By the time that we got a draft of the second Bill, the Assembly — in fairness, mostly the unionist side of the fence — decided that it was not worth trying to proceed with it. From memory, the draft second Bill was produced on the eve of recess, and it just drifted away. Unionists decided that it was not acceptable. It was very ambitious and was probably too ambitious at the time. As I think the Chair said, an awful lot of Committee time was spent on it. From memory, we spent about nine months in Committee scrutinising the Bill, and it was committed scrutiny. I believe that the original intention of all parties was to try to produce a final Bill that would be acceptable to the Assembly, but that just did not happen.
The 2012 Bill was a slimmed-down version, and it was mostly acceptable to me and my party.
We did not have too many issues with it, but, this time, a combination of unionism and a very vociferous grammar school campaign by the Governing Bodies Association eventually put a stop to it. It was not helped, frankly, by the heads of agreement, which the Minister referred to. There was a clear contradiction in the heads of agreement and between the heads of agreement and the Bill. The Department constantly denied that there was such a contradiction, but there was. It has been referred to recently and is a fact. That Bill was eventually withdrawn by the Minister, but not before we had to listen to nonsense such as that the ESA Bill would, allegedly, force all schools to teach Irish. That was put to me by somebody who should have known better and could not read the Queen's English. A very learned gentleman — I will not name him or say where he came from — said that ESA would put up the school wage bill by 30%. Utter nonsense, and those are only two examples, but the Bill is history now. It was not going to happen and was withdrawn by the Minister. 
The next decision was earlier this year, and it was to reboot, as you put it, Minister, the education boards. Through all of this, the education boards, school employees and the whole structure soldiered on manfully. However, in terms of staff morale, vacancy control, people having to act up and others taking early redundancy, it has been a very trying time for the boards, staff and schools. I pay tribute, as others did, to the way that the people working in these situations have managed to keep the ship afloat and get us to where we are now. 
Through all of this, the one common thread — the Minister referred to it — has been that the basic idea was to streamline the operation of the education system. I had never heard, until today, any objection to the principle of combining the boards into one unit. Today is the first time that I have heard that, and it is a pity, but we will now, hopefully, move towards one authority. 
The Bill is before us, and the time pressures, as the Minister outlined to the Committee and today, have convinced most of us to grant it accelerated passage. That is where we are now. The only real differences are in the consultation and Committee scrutiny, but we have the opportunity here, without a time limit, to scrutinise this short Bill adequately. So, I do not think that there is any democratic deficit or whatever you call it these days. The Bill can be raked over by anybody who really wants to do that.
We, like others, have said that we have reservations about certain aspects of the Bill, and I will give you a flavour of those. The representation of political members, of which there are to be eight, conveniently excludes one of the parties in government here. I can draw a comparison with the Policing Board, which has 10 members, and the Executive, where a smaller party qualifies for a position. The educational set-up in this country is such that, quite frequently, nationalists and unionists are clearly opposed. To me, that is quite unnecessary at times, but it just the nature of things. It does not do any harm to have what I might call a moderate voice at the table as well, so we will table an amendment along those lines.
We agree with others that the integrated and Irish-medium sectors could do with proper representation. I heard Mr Storey making the point that they have never had that, but that is not a reason for not changing things. Between them, the Irish-medium and integrated sectors represent a fairly significant percentage of the school population. That should be a growing percentage, but that is for another day. It is a good opportunity and a good time to introduce proper representation on this board, so we will table amendments to tinker with the numbers. I think that we will suggest that the board end up with 22 members instead of 20. 
I heard the figure of 60 mentioned in reference to the number who serve on boards at the moment. Presumably, that excludes the South Eastern Board. In my time, we have had dealings with that board, and it is the only one I know the figure for. The South Eastern Board alone had 20 members, and I imagine that the figure for the other boards was similar. Therefore, if we could scale the figure down from 80 to 20 or 22, we would not be doing too badly. I remind the Minister and others — one or two in the Chamber will remember — that, in Caitríona Ruane's time, the original proposal for the board of the first ESA was seven members. She was pretty unyielding on that point, but, through various means and discussions, we have finally got to the point at which we have been offered 19 members plus a chairman.
There is a question about the voluntary grammars. We are inclined to think that, as of right, the grammar school sector needs representation and a place on the board of the authority. The question that has been put to me is whether that position should refer to voluntary grammars or just to grammars. There are plenty of controlled grammars out there, and they make the point of asking who is representing them. They have common interests with the controlled sector generally, but they also have a common interest with the voluntary grammars. If we table an amendment on that basis, it will say "grammars" rather than "voluntary grammars".
We also intend to table an amendment on behalf of, let us say, the integrated and Irish-medium sectors. The 1989 Order, as we all know, places an onus on the Department to "encourage and facilitate". I remind Members that, two or three years ago — I do not have the date to hand — the House voted to call on the Minister of Education:
"to actively promote a system of integrated and shared education". — [Official Report, Bound Volume 58, p92, col 2].
That has never been enshrined in legislation, but maybe it is time. I know also that the 1989 Order refers to the boards as well as the Department, so you might say that what I am going to suggest is unnecessary, but we will probably table an amendment along the lines that the new authority should have an obligation to encourage, facilitate and promote the Irish-language and integrated sectors.
We have come a long way with this legislation. Unfortunately, it has been backward rather than forward. If you look at what was in the original ESA Bill in 2008, then look at what was taken out to produce what I thought was an acceptable Bill in 2012, which was not to be, and then look at what we are left with now, you will see that this Bill is right back to the bare bones. There is bound to be legislation that will come forward in future years to resurrect some of the very good stuff that was in both ESA Bills. Hopefully, we can at least get this Bill through. It is urgent. It is important legislation, even though it is short and simple. It is urgent, and we need to get it done.
I will conclude my remarks on that point. We will return to this at Consideration Stage.

Jonathan Craig: I support the Bill to create a single authority. It has been a long, long time getting to this point. In fact, it is over six years. In fact, it is so long ago that, when we first started on this journey, I recall that the honourable Member Basil McCrea was not only a member of the Ulster Unionist Party but its education spokesman. That, obviously, was a lifetime ago.
Commenting on the Bill, and on the fact that this Bill is clearly not the ESA Bill, one has to wonder why some others raised that issue. As was pointed by the Minister and the Chair, if there had been universal agreement on the ESA Bill between not only the two main parties but others, this Bill would not be before us. Common sense dictates that.

John McCallister: Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Craig: How others came to the firm conclusion that it was us and others who agreed the way forward on the ESA Bill baffles me. I will give way.

John McCallister: If the Member was in his place when I spoke during the debate on accelerated passage, he will know that I drew attention to the fact that an OFMDFM press release from 18 July 2012 announced agreement on about 10 areas, including the Maze and the ESA. It should not be that surprising to anyone in the House that we were under the impression that you guys had all agreed when you announced it in your own press release.

Jonathan Craig: I thank the honourable Member for his intervention. It was so long ago that even he was a member of the Ulster Unionist Party at that stage. Press releases — what does that actually mean? Let us be honest about it: where is the Maze and where is the ESA Bill?

John McCallister: You would like to do a deal —

Roy Beggs: Order.

Jonathan Craig: Where are a lot of the other issues out there? The simple truth is this: there never was full agreement on ESA. I recall the first ESA Bill coming to the House. I sat as a member of my party's team on it, and we tabled 40-plus amendments because of the level of disagreement. It went nowhere, and we have spent the past six years trying to cobble together something that the entire House could agree on.
I listened with bemusement to what some Ulster Unionist Members had to say on the issue. One Member asked what had happened to it, and the other Member said earlier that his party had killed it off. What is true? Did one kill it off? Was that correct, or is the other one correct to say that they do not know anything about it? Is it really, as I suspect, that they were both wrong in what they said?

Trevor Lunn: Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Craig: The Member always gives way.

Trevor Lunn: I just want to clarify things for the Member: that Bill was killed by both parties — the Ulster Unionists and the DUP. The Ulster Unionist Members were not on the Committee at that time, so their memory has gone dim, but it was as much your fault as theirs.

Jonathan Craig: There you are, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will take the blame on that one and happily accept it.
There is one thing that concerns me in all of this: in that intervening six-year period, approximately £17 million has been spent on the whole ESA process. I hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate on that. That involved civil servants and others in the background working on it. What I would like to know from the Minister is whether that work is transferable to the new authority or whether taxpayers' money has been completely and utterly wasted on that process. That concerns me, given where we are on the budget issue around a lot of this. 
Something that I will welcome in the Bill is the fact that, for the first time in a long time — I speak as someone who is under the authority of the South Eastern Board — we will have elected representatives on the authority. I welcome that because that is a massive step forward for someone who comes from the South Eastern Board area. We have been living with commissioners for well over six years, and that has been deeply regrettable. It has led to a democratic deficit in that board area.
I formally admit that I am a member of the board of governors of Laurelhill Community College and Killowen Primary School. I welcome the fact that the authority will be set up and will bring some form of proper support to the controlled sector. For the past six to seven years, I have sat on the board of governors of those schools during that whole process and watched the level of support that boards give to schools go down and down and down every year. It becomes much more difficult for a board of governors to get assistance from those boards. I hope that that will be reversed, and not only do I hope that it will be reversed, I welcome the fact that we have promises here of a new controlled body sector. My only question is why that is not written into the Bill. I listened to the Chair speak on the issue, and I hope that amendments will be tabled on that, because that is one thing that I want to see developed for the controlled sector. I watched with interest as others who already have educational bodies that have a say on the boards, as well as their own sectoral body speaking to the Department for them, spoke. That has always had a negative impact on the controlled sector, and it is good to see that that will be redressed in the Bill. 
The chief executive's position interests me, because I see in the Bill that the first chief executive will be appointed by the Minister. I question the logic behind that. What is the board being set up to do? It has employment rights: it should be appointing the chief executive. I appeal to the Minister to think about that. Should it not be an interim appointment for a set period — say, six months — while the board is set up? They can then choose for themselves who becomes the chief executive. That person will become the key individual in the authority in delivering the services on the ground. 
While I am talking about the chief executive, who is to be appointed under the Bill, I question what will happen to the five existing chief executives. Will they disappear, or, as I deeply suspect, will they become another layer of the bureaucratic system in Northern Ireland? I would like to hear the Minister's views on that, because it has cost implications for all of us in the House. 
I would also like the Minister to clarify what will happen to the support services in the existing five board areas when they come under this new single authority. Is the CASS support that is missing for schools at the minute going to be built up, strengthened and enhanced, or is that a matter that he will leave to the new authority? After six years of fighting, arguing, debating and disagreeing with others over the issue, I welcome the fact that here we stand today, discussing legislation that will finally move the situation forward.

Nelson McCausland: I support the Education Bill. I welcome it. After 40 years of the education and library boards, it is time for change, but, up to now, there has been no agreement on what that change might be. Everyone agrees that the system should be streamlined and simplified, but there has been no agreement on how that might be done. 
The imperative for change is partly that the current boards, because of the uncertainty, have, in a sense, been withering on the vine and have therefore become increasingly untenable and unsustainable. It is because of that uncertainty that people have taken the opportunity to leave and posts are not being filled. Because they have become unsustainable, it is imperative that we proceed as quickly as possible. Doing nothing is not an option, and the long saga of ESA is now over. 
The Bill is a short one, and therefore it is acceptable in the circumstances that it moves forward by accelerated passage, and I will turn to that in a moment. It is not the 2012 Bill, it is not the 2008 Bill, and, as we were reminded by Mr Lunn, we will claim the credit for killing off what was bad legislation. 
A number of Members pressed the point, including my colleague Michelle McIlveen and my other colleague, of the controlled sector support body.
It is important that that sector, which is at the very heart of our educational system, has the service and support of such a body. It needs to be properly grounded — that matter has been raised, and we look forward to what the Minister will say in that regard — and it needs to be adequate to meet the needs of that sector. Having served for many years on an education and library board, I know that there was always a perception that the controlled sector was somehow being treated in a second-class or inferior way and that there was not proper equality. The creation of a body to support that sector is a good step forward, but we need to get clarity on how that will be done.
I noticed that Mr Lunn spoke about the responsibility for advancing and promoting certain sectors. I would have thought that, therefore, there was a responsibility to advance and promote the controlled sector within our education system. Is it not worthy of advancement? Is it not worthy of support? Are those schools not worthy of promotion? I believe in equality. Others may talk about it, but I believe in it. I think that that sector deserves the equality of having a support body that is strong and has a commitment to advancing, promoting and supporting that sector.

Trevor Lunn: Will the Member give way?

Nelson McCausland: Yes, I will.

Trevor Lunn: I hear what Mr McCausland says about the controlled sector. I am delighted that the controlled sector will have a representative body that will be tasked to advance and promote the controlled sector as best it can. The integrated and Irish-medium sectors have had it built into legislation since 1989 that they should receive special treatment. That is based on parental demand and choice. All that we are doing is bringing that formally into the Bill and including the word "promote", which has never been there before. We are not trying to advance integrated education at the expense of the controlled sector. They all need promotion.

Nelson McCausland: I welcome the acceptance that the controlled sector should be supported and advanced. Whatever commitments there are for advancing other sectors should also be available to the controlled sector. If we believe in equality, it should be for everyone.
The other point that I want to make is about savings. It would be helpful if we had some sense of how much duplication will be addressed over the next period. Clearly, with five boards, there is duplication. Whilst it is true that places have not always been filled and there has been some depletion in staffing and, therefore, some savings have probably already been made, it would be helpful to have some clear indication of the assessment of the extent of the savings that will be made by the removal of duplication. There has been some sharing of services amongst the boards, and there was talk of extending that. However, the proposal before us for a new education authority will hopefully create greater savings. 
That will mean more money for schools. I take the opportunity to say that, in a whole range of areas, we should be looking at where we can make savings to put the money down to the schools. Quite often, you get a whole plethora of ad hoc initiatives that can soak up money in administration when it should go straight to the schools. Schools should be at the forefront.
It is good that the arrangements will be taken forward incrementally. Our education system is complex, and education is a complex subject. I do not know of any other country that has as many different types of schools as we have in Northern Ireland, and there is a complex architecture. It is also a very sensitive issue. We know that only too well, and we are all aware of the lobbying and the strength and fervency of that from various sectors. It is a sensitive and complex issue, and the approach that is being taken now to merge the five boards into one through this legislation is the right way forward.
Over the last few years, the staff in the boards have worked in very difficult circumstances, and it is right that we express our appreciation for their work in spite of the uncertainty and those difficult situations. Issues still need to be addressed — this is not the final Bill, and we know that amendments will be tabled and issues will be addressed.
Mr McCallister and Mrs Overend both referred to the fact that there are five and a half months until the start of the new year. If we consider the timeline for completing the legislative process, even with accelerated passage, and look at the preparatory work that will need to be done before 1 April 2015, it may be just as well that we have a five and a half months, if that is all to be completed.
The Minister sent a letter to the Chair of the Committee, Miss McIlveen, in which he referred to a programme management board which would be established to identify and oversee key work strands. It would be interesting to hear a little bit more about the timeline for that: when will those various pieces of work be completed? Clearly there are issues around finance, dissolution and the establishment of the controlled sector support body. How are all those things going to be done in that period of five and a half months?
I am happy to support the Bill. I think that it is a good outcome in the circumstances. It is much better than and preferable to what has been previously suggested, and it is for the benefit of the system, the teachers, the children and education in Northern Ireland.

Danny Kinahan: I welcome the Bill. As I said in the debate this morning, we welcome the streamlining of the Bill. Everyone will be glad to know that we are not opposing the Bill at this stage.
I hope that the Committee takes on board the points that I made this morning. We need to get some consultation in, or have some way of finding out what the stakeholders think, over the next few weeks. We need to know the detail on the structures and the organisations, and we need to make sure that there is a proper equality impact assessment of the Bill at the right moment.
I was shocked how ready everyone was this morning to accept accelerated passage without challenging it. It is our duty in this Chamber to challenge and debate matters. I am slightly shocked by some of the comments that were made this morning by Members in attacking each other. I am very pleased with the responses that we got at the end of that debate from the Minister, and I appreciate his promise to work with the Committee on the Bill. It was also good to hear who he had engaged with in the last two years. That is the whole point of the Assembly: to ask questions and find out. 
Our Minister, and I have it from the horse's mouth, opposed accelerated passage. It may not be in the minutes, but either you were not listening or — sorry, we are not allowed to use "you". People were not listening, but I have had it from two or three sources, so I say that just to make it absolutely clear.
I suggested the three-board model because various people suggested the three-board model to me, and I think we should have been discussing it. Again, that is what we are here for. We should accept compromises, and I was glad to hear that the Minister will accept them. Some suggestions for amendments are coming through, and it is absolutely right that we raise them today and next week, and find a joint way forward.
I am appalled by the rather disgraceful personal comments from the Chair of the Committee. I will not stoop so low. The proof is in the pudding, if you read the writing throughout the last few years. I will leave it at that.
The three issues that I want to deal with today are the selection of the chair, the make-up the board and the need for a review clause.
As far as the selection of the chair goes, I understand that the Bill says that the chair will be appointed by the Department, but will that competition be open to everyone? Will it follow proper Government guidelines and be an open and transparent process? Other Members have raised that matter today. What qualifications does the Minister want that chair, or the chief executive, to have? In his brief to the Committee, the Minister indicated that the chair will initially be appointed as an interim measure and, as the Chair of the Committee said, we want to make sure that that interim is not five or 10 years. Will the Minister clarify how long he sees that provision being in place?
Let us move on. We talk about the 12; if the Minister is not going to appoint the chair, then the number of places on the committee is 12, not 11. Will the Minister clarify whether he would make that the case if we agree?

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member's colleague stated that she would support the right of the integrated sector and the voluntary grammars to have membership. Does the Ulster Unionist Party also accept the right of the Irish-medium sector to be on the board?

Danny Kinahan: Thank you very much. You will hear me address that further on in my speech, but the answer is yes.
Given that we have one board, if the Bill goes all the way, there will be no comparisons between boards; that makes it even more important that the Department does not appoint the chair. You already have the other controls, so let the board appoint its own chair.
Moving on to the make-up of the board, we accept the political appointments but feel that we should not prevent practising educationalists from being appointed to it. In the previous Bill that was the case, so maybe the Minister will look at varying the guidelines so that we can get people who are working in the system onto the board.
If we consider this piece of legislation not to be an interim measure and accept that there will be an impasse and lack of action into the future, we need to think through what will happen to it in the long term. We seem to agree on the future being shared education, even though we all seem to have completely different ideas on it and very different intentions of how to put it in place. The Ulster Unionist Party wants to see it happen, and the present sharing out of the 11 posts gives CCMS and the controlled sector most of the say: it does not include the integrated, voluntary or Irish sectors. In the Committee briefing the Minister indicated that a controlled sector body would be set up. Will the Minister promise that that will be the case? Will it definitely be funded and set up? If so, by when?
(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Mitchel McLaughlin] in the Chair)
Given that we will have a sectoral body for the controlled sector and that we still have the CCMS, will the board be deemed to be unfair if it does not have members from the Governing Bodies Association and the other sectors? It would seem so. We want to work for the future and make sure that we have a board that represents everybody. We need to have voluntary sector representation. I did speak to the voluntary sector, for those who were querying whether I did or not, last night; I also spoke to them as soon as we knew that the Bill was coming up to find out their views. It is the job of all of us to talk to various people, and I expect everyone else to do the same. They would like positions on the board, and maybe, as others have said, the Minister should talk to them rather than wait for them to come to him.
According to the student numbers that I was given for 2013-14, you have 118,000 in controlled, 117,000 in maintained, 21,000 in integrated and 47,000 in voluntary. That indicates that we need to give all the sectors their share.
We in the Ulster Unionist Party intend to bring forward amendments, although it would be wise to talk to the other parties, as we all have different ways of taking this forward.
Lastly, I want to raise the need for a review clause. If the Bill remains in place for a long time, we need to put a review clause in place with regard to the membership of the committee. It might be, depending on what happens at the end of the week or in meetings in future, that we need to change the number of political appointees. However, that is not what I am concentrating on now: we need to put something in place that looks at the proportions of pupils in types of schools so that if, in 10 years, the integrated sector's proportion has doubled, we should consider doubling its representation on the committee. We need to find a formula and find a way forward. That would be the right thing to do.
I was very pleased to hear the Chair of the Committee praising the whole of the education sector and all its hard work. It is absolutely right that we all praise the sector: we put them through a hard time. We all have our strong beliefs.
We support what is happening today, and we wait to see what the amendments bring next week.

Robin Newton: This is a relatively short Bill: short but nonetheless important. The Bill indicates that this is a good day for Northern Ireland, its education system and the pupils who ultimately benefit from it. It has taken us a long time to get here, and it has been a difficult passage.
Even though I was not on the Education Committee for all the time during which ESA was being discussed, I could not help but be involved in ESA and the concerns that were expressed. The Bill was controversial and was debated on a number of occasions. It was much criticised and pored over, line by line and word by word. There was much anxiety about the Bill, certainly on this side of the Chamber, but it was not seen as being a practical solution to where we wanted to be in education.
We have moved on considerably. The word “dissolution” is used in the Bill, and maybe that is for technical or legal reasons. “Amalgamation” sounds much friendlier to me. The Bill refers to the "dissolution" of the education and library boards and the creation, via the Education Bill, of an Education Authority.
There are those of us who definitely welcome the board for controlled schools, which we see as a positive step in the right direction. Over the years, the controlled sector has been treated rather shabbily, and, unlike some sectors, has not been seen as having a privileged position. The Bill needs to bring equality into the education system, and that board needs authority and responsibility to be brought to it.
On a number of occasions, I raised my concerns with the Minister about the two boards that impact me directly. Mr Craig referred to the board that operates in his area, where the Belfast Education and Library Board operated for many years without any political input whatsoever. The Minister eventually got around to addressing that issue, but it created a gap that remained for a long time, when constituents could not raise issues, and politicians and councillors could not bring issues into the heart of the debate in the Belfast Education and Library Board.
Mr Craig referred to the fact that the South Eastern Education and Library Board was run by, I think, three very nice people. I have no doubt that they were professional in their own way. They were appointed by the Minister, however, and were there to do the Minister’s bidding, if I may use that expression. They were certainly not responsible to any members of the public, the parents or the teaching staff, and access to them was very limited. I am sure that they did their best and that their intentions were worthy, but there was no accountability from the commissioners.
We are moving towards the Bill, but there have been indications that we are not there yet, and other things have still to be settled. It does appear, however, that the groundwork has now been done, and the Bill will be good for education. It will provide stability in the educational system and opportunities for parents in that it will give them access to the policymakers and decision-makers. The Bill will help pupils, who, hopefully, will benefit from the creation of the Education Authority and the access that will become available. Northern Ireland will have a modern, responsive structure to take education forward.
There are direct outputs from the Bill. I suppose that it is right to say — again, it is more pertinent in the east of the city and the East Belfast constituency — that area planning will be a significant feature. Moving to the single body potentially allows for better area planning. No one can argue against area planning. It is the right thing to do, but, so often, it has let down the schools and pupils whom it is supposedly there to serve. 
If we move forward, and we will, area planning has to have a number of factors. It has to have openness and transparency, and it must include meaningful consultation. You know, Minister, that, often, when board representatives come to speak to a school perceived to be under threat of closure, they do not come to seek a way forward or an innovative solution, they come to say that the school is closing and that there will be a period of consultation on its closure. More innovative thinking is needed, and there will be that opportunity as we move the Bill forward. 
It has been well rehearsed, and I want to pay tribute to you, Minister, for a decision that you took concerning east Belfast.

John O'Dowd: I will have to listen to this one.

Robin Newton: I know. 
The parents and teachers involved in Dundonald High School were engaged in a consultation process that adopted the approach that I outlined. It took the Minister to make a decision to keep the school open. I believe that the closure of Dundonald High School, and the context in which it was being brought about, needed to be looked at more innovatively. At least, the potential to keep it open needed a more innovative approach. Not only was an approach to keep it open needed but guidelines had to be set for how it could be kept open, whereas, when the board came to consult, it really was about closure. 
I could go on about Orangefield High School, but we do not need to rehearse that because we have already been there. The fact is that you were challenged, Minister, with a judicial review on the potential merger of Newtownbreda High School and Knockbreda High School, the approach to which was an example of the area planning system letting down the potential of the schools. 
There are other examples that we can learn from. A decision by the previous Minister to merge Beechfield and Mersey Street primary schools brought about the creation of a new build, Victoria Park Primary School. The plan was to build a 12-classroom school, when all the figures said that a 14-classroom school was needed. Only after consultation with parents, teachers and the board of governors, along with political input, was it decided not to open a brand new school with 12 classrooms and two Portakabins in the playground but to build a 14-classroom primary school. Again, area planning was letting us down, and it was letting down the pupils and teachers .
During your time at Committee, Minister, I raised the need to manage the change. Someone said that we should pay tribute to the Belfast Education and Library Board, the South Eastern Education and Library Board and the other boards and their staff, who, under difficult circumstances, have done a good job. I think that someone earlier referred to them "holding it together". We need to pay tribute to those staff members. As they move into the difficult situation of change, that change needs to be professionally managed. It needs to be done in such a way that there is a good communication system with all those who will be impacted on by the change. It needs to be seen that they are involved in the outcomes of the creation of the new body. We also need to protect them, Minister. Situations cannot be arrived at in which it is extremely disadvantageous for someone to move from an education and library board to another body. The staff have delivered for us in the past, and they deserve our thanks for that.
Mrs Overend referred to there being a lot of disquiet. I hope that her disquiet will be overcome. During her opportunity to question you, Minister, at the Committee, Mrs Overend opened her remarks by saying:
"A lot of the questions have been covered".
She appeared to be content with the questions that had been covered. She did not raise any issues. Her only cause for —

Sandra Overend: Will the Member give way?

Robin Newton: I will.

Sandra Overend: That is unbelievable. I was stating a fact. There were a number of members called before me, and so a number of questions had been covered. I did not say that all of them had been covered. That is rather petty.

Robin Newton: If you say that a lot of the questions have been covered, and you then do not raise anything about those questions, you assume that the Member was content with the answers given. I think that that is a reasonable assumption to make.
She then raised only a question about the structure — I will quote from Hansard — which was:
"How many places are there?"
Her second question was:
"Will the unions apply to that other sector?"
Mrs Overend then said:
"There are only four places, so it is quite limited. Is there room to manoeuvre around the numbers?"
She continued:
"But it has to be representative, and that is key."
I do not get in those questions all the concerns that were raised by Mrs Overend today, but it remains to be seen.
We are in a different place because of the diligent work that was carried out by the Committee over the past number of years on the ESA Bill. That diligent work will have to be carried on as we finalise the Bill. I pay tribute to former Committee members, and I hope that we can continue the diligence of that work in the coming days.

Pat Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. It has already been stated that this is a short, simple and straightforward Bill. I intend my contribution to the debate to be in the same vein.
It is a bit like the individual who wants to buy himself a Mercedes but, when he looks at his bank statement, realises that he can afford only a Ford.
Although it is disappointing initially, when he thinks about the clapped-out old jalopy he is driving, which is coming up for MOT in five and a half months, maybe a Ford is not such a bad idea after all. That is the situation we are in. We could not get over the line with ESA, but we have been through everything on it. We have been through all the details. Trevor Lunn said today that we had had six or seven years going through every single dot and crossing every t. We have covered it inside out. We could not get agreement, unfortunately. In my view, it would have been a much better, more adventurous option and one that would have served our children in schools much better than the current model. However, the current model is not bad; it is better than what we have.
Remember, what has triggered this is the reform of local government. The five education and library boards were defined by local government boundaries. Legislation is required to ensure that the education administration is compatible with local government reform. If it is not compatible, it could be open to legal challenge.
I understand that Members want to ensure that there is proper scrutiny. I agree with that. There should be proper scrutiny of any legislation that goes through, and a Sinn Féin Minister should be subject to as much scrutiny as any other Minister, whether they are from the DUP, the Ulster Unionists, Alliance, the SDLP or anybody. It is right that there is proper scrutiny, but we have scrutinised every aspect of education administration over the past six or seven years. It is time to move on.
Some people want to set themselves up as an opposition. Fair enough, I have no difficulty with that, but I have difficulty with people introducing, at the very last minute, issues that are not thought out and have never been raised before and that we hear about for the first time here in the Chamber. The issue of three boards rather than five — that is the first I have heard of that issue, which was raised here today.
The Assembly gets a lot of bad publicity in the media about politicians bickering. I do not always agree with that, and I think that the media focus on disagreements between various parties. I suppose that is the job that the media have, but there is a difference between bickering and standing on points of principle around certain issues. All of us will do that at certain times, but what will get us more bad publicity than anything is politicians in the Chamber bringing forward silly arguments by saying that this has not been thought through or properly scrutinised, when we all know that it has been. Scrutiny is good and opposition is good, but only when it is done properly, and it is not being done properly. I understand that John McCallister has a private Member's Bill on providing an opposition here coming up in the future. Maybe he feels that, on that basis, he has to oppose everything. Maybe the Ulster Unionists think that they have to oppose everything. That is not good politics, and it is certainly not good publicity for the Assembly.
I agree with Robin Newton that this is a good day for the Assembly. The groundwork has been done on the Bill, and it will be to the benefit of our young people and children in schools right across the North. That is what we should be thinking of: what is best for our education system and the children in our schools and how we can best administer that education system so that it benefits the children in the schools.
A single board will overarch the issue of compatibility with local government boundaries. It is argued that the new body should bring much of the £185 million savings over 10 years that it was calculated would accrue from the ESA Bill. I am always sceptical about figures, particularly when they are projected over such a long period. I have no reason to doubt them; I am just always sceptical. Notwithstanding that, it is clear that, if we do not make the change now and end up with a one-board model rather than the current five, new investment will have to be put into those boards. Those boards are the old jalopy that is chugging along. They have been limping along now for the past number of years. If we do not get this Bill through, they will need significant new investment. Let us be clear: the service delivered by a single board will not differ from the service that is being delivered by the boards as they stand. 
I accept that there are issues that probably need to be resolved around the make-up of the board and who should sit on it. I certainly think that the integrated and Irish-medium sectors, given the legislative underpinning that requires the Minister to encourage and facilitate those sectors, should have a role in the board. I am not opposed to the voluntary grammar sector having a role either. We should try to be as inclusive as possible so that sectors do not feel that they are being excluded and can all feel that they have a voice in the new set-up.

Basil McCrea: Will the Member give way?

Pat Sheehan: Yes, I will give way.

Basil McCrea: I just wonder on that point because I think that the Minister has said that, if we could expand the number of places to 30, we could probably fill those as well. Lots of people think that they should have representation on the board. The board may become unwieldy. Is the Member absolutely certain that we need sectoral representation on the board at all? Do we need people with vested interests trying to fight their corner, or should we look at a different way of doing things, which was the intention of the original ESA Bill? I just wonder whether we really have to make the board so big that everybody is on it.

Pat Sheehan: I certainly accept the argument that, if you make a board too big, it can become unwieldy. The model of the Policing Board was mentioned in the debate. It has 19 members and is not particularly unwieldy. It works quite well sometimes. Other times, it does not work so well. I would say that, if there were 13 members on the board, it would be the same. If there were 20 or 30 members on the board, you would have a similar outcome. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it does not, irrespective of how many are on it.
On the issue of whether there should be sectoral bodies involved in it, these are the people who have an interest in the education of our children, and these are the people who have a stake in the education of our children. It is only fair that people who are so closely involved in the education of our children should have a stake in this and that we should be inclusive rather than exclusive. 
I am sure that Members will table amendments to the Bill as they see fit. As it stands now, I give it my support.

Mitchel McLaughlin: If someone can get their telephone under control, we will move on.

Steven Agnew: I declare an interest as a director of NICIE. I suppose that, in the context of the Education Bill, it is a good opportunity for me to pay respect and indeed congratulations to my former teacher Michelle McIlveen, Chair of the Committee for Education. The House will already know that I had another illustrious teacher, Mr Sammy Wilson. He still gives me lectures, but I do not have to listen now, at least. [Laughter.] I am sure that both my former teachers in the DUP are very proud of what I have become.
The Education Minister has described the Bill as the path of least resistance. He said that no one loses and that it is the minimum legislation. We were told by a number of the Members who spoke that this is a good day for Northern Ireland's education system. If that is the case, we have set the bar pretty low. The Minister also referred to and to some extent criticised those who point the finger. I will point the finger. I point the finger at the Executive. This is a democracy, and you are the Government. If this is the best that you can bring forward, you have failed. There should be collective responsibility. We heard Members from parties that are on the Executive — maybe that is who the Minister was referring to — criticise the Bill and say that they had very little to do with it. I am sure that Mr McCallister will echo my comment that, if you have a Minister in the Executive and you say that you have no say in the Government on something as important as the Education Bill, I have to query what role you play. So I do point the finger at the Executive and the Executive parties. They have failed to bring forward an imaginative and progressive Education Bill, something other than what the Minister himself describes as minimal legislation. 
An opportunity has been missed, in the Bill and in area-based planning. One of the few things in education that the DUP and Sinn Féin seem to agree on is the need to work towards a single education system. It will not happen overnight; I think that everyone would accept that. However, we are not even taking steps in that direction, either through the Bill or through area-based planning. We have a segregated system that is crumbling under its own inefficiency, and all that we have done is seek to prop it up. This legislation continues, as has been acknowledged by most, what is already in place. Area-based planning and so-called shared education has sought to find imaginative ways to keep an unviable system economically viable. 
Members mentioned the membership of the new authority. I add to that that there is a need to have a voice from the integrated sector. There is a legal duty to facilitate and encourage integrated education. I agree with Mr Lunn that perhaps it should be a duty to promote. To me, that is a strategic duty, and the Minister has stressed that the Education Authority is a strategic body. The integrated sector should have at least a say in it, because, to some extent, that duty runs contrary to the interests of some of the other proposed board members. 
A point that has not been made is that the new body will be a significant employer in our public sector. I have seen a figure of 35,000 staff under the new body, and the Minister can confirm whether that is correct. We have an opportunity in the Bill to set an example of how the public sector takes forward employment. It should be written in the Bill that the new authority will be a living wage employer. We hear a lot in the Assembly and in wider UK debate about making work pay. It is important that work pays for those on the lowest rung of our public bodies. In the legislation, we have an opportunity to set an example in that regard. Given that there is an issue around whether the Minister appoints the chief executive or the board does, the issue of the chief executive's pay will be raised. That should be set. There should be a maximum ratio between the lowest paid on the board and the highest paid, who, presumably, will be the chief executive. We can perhaps salvage something that will be transformative through the Bill in what is otherwise uninspiring legislation.
Chris Hazzard referred to educational excellence. That is an ambition that we all have. We may have different views on how we get there, but I do not think that the Bill moves us much in that direction. I do not think that it is harmful in that regard, but I do not think that this is the Bill or the vehicle. If we can see some efficiency savings going into front line education, that will be welcomed, but we have taken six or seven years to get here at an expense of £17 million. We were told that ESA would produce estimated savings of £180 million over 10 years. Whether or not those figures were accurate, it was, at least, something that we could look towards. I have yet to hear what, if any, savings will be made from this. Will we recoup the £17 million? Will we see efficiencies? Will we see more money directed into front line education services?
This is minimal legislation that, we have all been told, must be agreed, but it is clear that what the Executive have brought forward does not move much forward. As I have said before, we are told that our education sector will welcome the Bill, when, in reality, all it will welcome is the end of a long, tired old saga.

Basil McCrea: A long, long, long time ago, I was a member of the Ulster Unionist Party. As Mr Craig pointed out, I was education spokesman. I listened to Miss McIlveen say, I think, that she had had the benefit of many UUP spokesmen and many bits of advice and was singularly unimpressed by any of them or anybody who had delivered them. I am happy to stand here and put my academic background in the measure against colleagues opposite. I am happy to take on the debate. I will not be intimidated. If any of you wish to take me on, I am happy to have the debate. That is the purpose of the Chamber and this part in the proceedings. 
If Members opposite would like to have a copy of Hansard, I will send it to them, as the record shows where the opposition to the ESA Bills that were brought forward originally came from. Let us be honest: you cannot get a Bill on the Floor if it does not have agreement from the Executive. Those Bills were opposed because they were wrong. 
When I look at this document, there are three phrases that stand out. The first is "the minimum required"; the second is "expediency", which Mr Hazzard used; and the third is "a strategic body", which is what the Minister hoped that this would be. Yet I can read the official record of 30 September, when the Minister outlined his proposals for accelerated passage, and he said:
"In only two respects does the Bill provide some element of significant change."
Mr Agnew, who spoke before me, said that this is a fairly limited proposal and it is not a good day for education or for the Assembly. I concur. This is the minimum. In fact, the Minister said:
"That is the extent of the Bill. Despite the new nomenclature and the two necessary changes that I have summarised, the Bill is best and most accurately understood as the minimum legislation required to create a single board".
You can argue about whether we have to do it by accelerated passage or not. I voted against that earlier today because I do not think that it is a good idea in principle, but I do understand the reasoning.
The most important thing that I would like the Minister to address is to be found on page 10 of the Official Report of the Committee meeting of 30 September. I do not think that it has been covered in this debate. The Minister said:
"As the body establishes itself and works through the urgent matters of staffing etc and consolidates its position, I think it only right and proper that one of the next steps would be to look at the future and consider how it sees education being delivered in the future."
This is the next step over which we have no control. Earlier, Mr Rogers was adamant about bringing forward amendments because he thinks that the Bill does not go far enough; he wants to make it an ESA Bill. I am concerned that the provisions put forward in the Bill are simple because we could agree on nothing else. 
There is no agreement. There is no shared vision. There is no trust. There is no ability to work together. All there is is fear. I fear for, amongst others, the voluntary grammar sector, the controlled grammar sector, the integrated sector and the Irish-medium sector. The problem is that these people are left out of a consultation on what is a fundamental part of our civic society. We have not really addressed that issue; we have not actually got a resolution. I understand that you have to move forward on certain issues because of timescales, but we have not really fixed the problem. All that we have done is the minimum that is required.
There are a number of issues, and I recognise that I have little influence on these debates in terms of votes. All that I can do is raise with you concerns that I, as a stakeholder, would raise. It is not just the bodies that have a stake. I have a stake. It is my future. It is my children's future. It is our community's future. I am concerned that we are not addressing these issues properly.
Some people mentioned the Belfast Education and Library Board and how it went on without political representation for quite some time. Mr Newton brought that up. We will come to the South Eastern Board, because I know that Mr Lunn has a point on that. Maybe that was not a bad thing. Was it a bad thing that people were able to make decisions based on fact, policy and strategic vision? We got a great litany of what happens when politics gets involved in these decisions. It is really difficult to close a school in your area.
Mr Lunn mentioned the South Eastern Education and Library Board. I seem to recall — Mr Lunn might correct me as he is perhaps more expert on this matter than me — that it was the DUP that voted that body out of existence because it would not agree a budget. That is a pretty interesting position for Members on that side of the House because they are now —

Peter Weir: Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea: I will make the point and let you come in in a minute, Mr Weir.
This was where people made a point and said, "We are not going to agree a budget." Apparently that is an OK tactic if it is a South Eastern Education and Library Board but not if you are an Executive or Assembly. That is what caused that place to go and why we have had no political representation.

Mitchel McLaughlin: I am struggling to understand the relevance of this point to what is before us. If it is part of the context and you are coming to the point, I encourage you to do that. You have taken an intervention, and I will not stop that. However, can we stay focused on why we are discussing this matter today?

Peter Weir: I cannot guarantee relevance, but I will try to be at least succinctly irrelevant in responding to the point that has been raised. The plug that was pulled on the South Eastern Board was pulled by a direct rule Minister at a time of direct rule. I cannot remember whether or not the Member was involved in politics at that stage. However, as with all the boards, the board had a 60% majority of unelected members. It is inaccurate to level that at any particular party. At that stage, efforts were made to try to protect those with special needs in particular. The Member should reflect on what he has said on the history of the South Eastern Board. It is not accurate, and I speak as someone who was a member of the South Eastern Board at one stage.

Basil McCrea: It is interesting that that is one of the supposedly succinct interventions from the Member, but somewhere in the middle of that was the statement that this education and library board was run for quite some time with no political intervention.
I will go back to your point, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. As I understand it, part of the Bill concerns the removal of education and library boards to turn them into a single education and library board, and another aspect is the membership of that body. That is why I think that my reference to the Belfast Education and Library Board and the South Eastern Education and Library Board is relevant to the discussion.
I do not wish to detain Members unnecessarily, other than to say that this is the minimum required. This is a political fudge; this is not a great day for Northern Ireland or the Assembly; and this is all we can achieve, which is not very much. Is there any need to have 20 people on the board? I asked Mr Sheehan why it needed to be so big. Do we want it to be even bigger? Do we want it to have 30 members? When we try to get more and more people on a body, the danger is that it does not get agreement. The fundamental problem with this debate is that there is no agreement, no trust and no way forward. 
We will look at that when the Bill is being scrutinised. It is a very limited Bill, but I still worry that it is the Trojan Horse that will see the destruction of many of our successful schools, and I will not stand for it.

Mitchel McLaughlin: As this is the first debate in which the Assembly will hear from Ms Sugden, I remind the House that it is the convention that a maiden speech is made without interruption.

Claire Sugden: Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I am sure that many Members will be glad to see me, an independent representative, rise in my place, as it suggests that this long day is nearly over. Coleraine, however, is a long drive, I have a Committee meeting in the morning, we could make the most of the evening, I have a lot to say, and I am pretty sure that, on this opportunity of my maiden speech, what I say does not have to be relevant. [Laughter.] I had hoped to make my maiden speech before now, but I will admit that these past few months have been a challenge and a steep learning curve for me in a role that was very unexpected. I assure the House that, as an MLA, I am very capable of holding the Northern Ireland Executive to account and doing the job that we are here to do for the best interests of my constituents. 
If anything, these past few months have been invigorating for me. I have been given a unique opportunity to serve the people of East Londonderry and to be their advocate and champion. I pay tribute to my constituents, because, indirectly, I have been given a mandate to serve them, and I will honour that as best I can. I am grateful for their support during my short time in office.
The passing of my predecessor, my boss and, most of all, my dear friend David McClarty was heartbreaking. In life and death, David was and remains an important influence in my life. He was my mentor, he was my guide, and he is the politician whom I would be honoured to become. I am privileged to sit here after him. The reaction to his passing was comforting, because Coleraine — in fact, Northern Ireland — loved him as much as I did. As an independent politician, David did not move political mountains, but he achieved much more, because he connected with the people whom he represented and helped them. As politicians — as elected representatives — that is one thing that we should all strive to do. All politics is local, and political parties in the House would do well to remember that for the benefit of Northern Ireland.
I move now to the Bill. I will not stand here and reiterate what other Members have said in support of the Bill, because I struggle to add anything else. As was said, it is short, simple and uninspiring — a Ford, if you like — and a matter of process to tidy up an RPA legal framework. In other words, it is a limited Bill. It further demonstrates the inability of our Executive to legislate effectively without throwing their toys out of the pram or making deals behind closed doors.
Yesterday, I abstained from voting for our new Speaker. I was frustrated, and I was not going to vote for a deal that I did not make. Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I have no issue with you sitting in the Chair. You seem to be quite well versed in the role, but I do have an issue when two parties make deals behind closed doors, forgetting the mandate of other elected representatives in the House. Had that deal been made with the consensus of everyone, you might be sitting here as Speaker — well, that is unlikely.
I will take this opportunity, because I can, to remind all political parties moving into the new talks to be mindful of the position that the people of Northern Ireland put you in. Be mindful of how far we have come, because that is important, and take responsibility for the power that you hold. I am 28 years old. I live for Northern Ireland. I live for politics in Northern Ireland. I would love to bring my generation with me. I want my generation to feel the same way about this country and Administration as I do. You know, it is OK to drive a Ford, but I would rather drive a Porsche, and I think that that is what we should aim for. 
I will support the Bill, so that box is ticked. However, I note, as others noted, the lack of representation from groups other than the controlled sector. That was particularly apparent when I requested a meeting with our Minister of Education and he refused, saying that it was not necessary, and directed me to my education and library board. Minister, I went to someone at my education and library board, and he directed me back to you. These people do not have anyone to lobby for them, and, in my position as an elected representative for East Londonderry, I have tried to do that. 
All of our children deserve to have the best education, but they can have that only if they have someone to voice their concerns. I believe that they should be included in such a board. Maybe we should move forward with that. 
As I reiterated, the Bill will go through as a matter of process, and that is fine, but it represents a shortfall in our government. We have the potential to do so much more, and I look forward to a time when we are able to do that.

John McCallister: Let me be the first to congratulate Ms Sugden on her maiden speech. I declare an interest. My wife is a teacher in the employment of the South Eastern Education and Library Board, and she is also from east Londonderry originally. In case you try to stop me speaking, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I voted for you yesterday. [Laughter.] I also voted for Mr Dallat and for Mr Beggs, just to cover all the bases. 
The Minister claimed that the Bill is likely to bring savings of between £180 million and £185 million. When he responds to the debate, I would like some detail on the foundation of that claim That is a lot of money to claim as savings, and it is over quite an extended period. The Minister had to admit to the Committee that the business case for the Bill and this model of reform had not been submitted to DFP. I am sure that he will want to comment on when he expects that business case to be ready. Are we likely to pass the legislation before the business case has even been presented to DFP? 
The Minister claimed that this model will continue without any further reduction in posts. He will be aware that, in preparation for ESA, the education and library boards shed more than 400 jobs. Considering that the Bill does not introduce any radical reform — rather, it is a reshuffling of the pack — I ask the Minister where these savings, without further significant reforms, are likely to come from. That brings me to the point that, at times, when listening to the debate, I felt that we almost seemed to have two Bills: one that the DUP thinks that it is talking about; and one that Sinn Féin thinks that it is talking about. I am not quite sure that we are all talking about the same Bill.
The Minister claims that he wants to give certainty to staff. As others have said — I will reiterate it — staff have been treated abysmally by the entire Executive for years now. We want the Bill to be more than just a stopgap, yet they are going to find significant savings over the next 10 years. It is hard to see where those will come from. If the Minister could give more clarity on the savings and the business case in his summing-up, I would be very grateful.
I ask DUP and UUP colleagues where the Bill leaves their stated policy. Perhaps, as Mr Craig would say, press releases do not mean anything. The stated policy of the First Minister, Peter Robinson, and, I am fairly certain, Mike Nesbitt on numerous occasions has been to move to a single education system. The Bill appears to me to consolidate the divide that they claim to hate so much. In fact, Mr McCausland, in his contribution, was almost congratulating himself on getting a place for the sector that he is most passionate about, but where does that sit with the move to a single education system? 
I believe that the Minister is right in his approach to a shared education system. I think that it is a more realistic outcome of where we will get to, but it is important to have financial support for the controlled sector body in there. I do not quite understand how you can have a single education system that the DUP and the UUP talk about, only then suddenly to want all these sectoral interests, unless you have completely abandoned that approach. Or was it more about having a dig at the Catholic Church?
I have something to say to the Alliance Party about integrated education. There is a lack of representation for the integrated sector in the Bill, and, let us face it, the Alliance Party probably considers itself the custodian of the integrated sector. I am amazed that it is allowing the Bill to pass by accelerated passage without giving the integrated sector, or the Irish-medium sector for that matter, an opportunity to come before the Committee, speak and present its concerns on the Bill. I am disappointed with that approach, and I will reiterate my concerns about accelerated passage. 
We are hearing arguments that this is a short and simple Bill. If it is short and simple, why do we not do the proper process? We spent £17 million or £18 million on a shadow form of ESA that never became relevant. Surely we could do the preparatory work that Mr McCausland talked about while letting the Bill go through the Assembly processes. It is right and proper that the Bill should have gone through Committee.
I will pick up on some of the points that colleagues made. There was talk of minimal legislation but delivering maximum ESA savings. Is that a viable position to hold? Is that likely to happen? Michelle McIlveen, as Chair of the Committee, talked about the maximum amount of the budget going to children and front line services. The Executive should be striving for that.
Mr Hazzard made a point about educational excellence. I do not think that you will find any disagreement from anyone that we want to see excellence in every school in the land. We all strive for that and want it for our own family and children. We should want to extend that to all our constituents and all our citizens.
Mr Rogers talked about road maps and certainty, but the problem with the Bill is that I am not quite sure that it provides the level of certainty, because it seems that we will need significant reform to go with this if we are to build up that level of savings. If we get this legislation wrong, it will not benefit anyone. If the Bill does not receive the proper scrutiny — the valued scrutiny that Miss McIlveen and the Committee could provide — I do not think that that would be good for anyone, let alone our representative democracy.
I take issue with Mr Craig's point that, somehow, this was never supported by the DUP. He cast up that, because it was so long ago, I was still a member of the UUP. We have been doing the review of public administration for so long that Nelson McCausland and Peter Weir were members of the UUP at the start. It is so long in the grind of getting through this.

Peter Weir: Will the Member give way?

John McCallister: He is clearly going to make another very relevant point.

Peter Weir: I obviously did not reach the dizzy heights of deputy leadership of the said party, but, whereas the accusation would be true of me at the time of the introduction of RPA, I urge him to withdraw the scurrilous accusation against Nelson McCausland who, at that stage, was not a member of the Ulster Unionist Party. [Laughter.]

John McCallister: It is good to hear that Nelson got out slightly earlier than Peter.

Mervyn Storey: And yourself.

John McCallister: Yes; and myself. [Laughter.] Mr Craig's comments highlight — as I keep warning, with all the charity that I can muster, my former colleagues in the UUP — that this is why you should not do unionist unity: you cannot believe a word that they tell you. A press release in July 2012 stated:
"Following a series of meetings and discussions the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are pleased to announce agreements across a range of policy areas and initiatives that will be taken forward over the course of the next number of weeks.".
Jointly, they went on to say that they were delighted to make announcements on a wide range of initiatives, including the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation; the Victims Commissioner; the Ilex chair; the investment strategy for Northern Ireland; the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy — that is going well; and the Education and Skills Authority. Now let us read what the press release says on it:
"The discussions on the content of the ESA bill have been successfully concluded and the bill will be brought to the next meeting of the Executive in order to commence its legislative passage in the Assembly.".
Although we might have established that Mr McCausland was not a member of the UUP when RPA started, he was a member of the Executive when that press release went out. He was the Minister for Social Development, and Mr Storey, the now Minister, was Chair of the Education Committee. A Bill cannot leave the Executive if OFMDFM does not give its approval, so this idea that the DUP somehow never supported the ESA Bill, never had its hands anywhere near it and would not be seen to support it has to be an absolute myth. You cannot —

Mervyn Storey: Will the Member give way?

John McCallister: Mr Storey will maybe confirm that he knows because he is bound to have been involved in the talks at that point.

Mervyn Storey: I am glad that the Member has given way. As always with NI21 — as far as I know, that is still the party that the Member belongs to —

John McCallister: No.

Mervyn Storey: Oh no, he does not and all that. He is now an independent. That is right.
Let us set the record straight. If the Member goes back and checks the timeline for the agreement in the Executive, he will see that it was predicated on the basis of the decision that was made by the First Minister and deputy First Minister about the heads of agreement. The heads of agreement were the basis upon which the Bill would proceed. It was abundantly clear, when the Bill proceeded, that the heads of agreement could not be implemented because of difficulties with clause 5 and clause 10. When the Member checks the facts about the heads of agreement and the Bill, he will find that that was the timeline. My party remained committed to delivery, but the difficulty was that what was going to be delivered was not what had been agreed.

John McCallister: I am grateful for that, but that is at direct variance with what Mr Craig said, which was that we could not believe a press release coming out of OFMDFM. I know that, perhaps in DUP circles, the First Minister may not be the force that he once was, but, back in 2012, this was what you said: the Bill could not have left OFMDFM without your agreement and your hands effectively all over it, and you agreed it. Mr Craig almost denied that you had anything to do with it; the press release was nothing to do with you.
I turn to other issues. Overall, we are making a mistake by rushing this legislation through. The Bill is not nearly as dramatic as the original ESA Bill was going to be. I am not going to vote against it tonight, simply because there is an overwhelming majority in favour of it. However, I think that this is something that should have gone through a proper scrutiny process with all of the benefits that that brings. Effectively, what we have done here today and acquiesced so much on is the Executive getting a rubber stamp from the Northern Ireland Assembly without the proper scrutiny. It will mean that there will probably be more amendments. It will mean that we will probably have it passed before a suitable business case is anywhere near DFP. 
Mr Sheehan talked about opposition. If he checks my voting record, he will find the type of opposition that I mean, which is that when you think that something is bad or there is poor legislation or poor governance, you vote against it, like accelerated passage. Oddly enough, it would have been very easy for me to vote against things like the Public Service Pensions Bill, but it was the fiscally responsible thing to do. It would be very easy for me to join you guys and vote against —

Pat Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

John McCallister: — welfare reform or hold out. It would not be the terribly wise thing to do. Even former Minister McCausland made some advances in negotiating opt-outs on welfare reform. Yet, here we are caught in a crisis of Sinn Féin's own making.
I give way to the Member.

Pat Sheehan: I thank the Member for giving way. I am not calling the Member's integrity into question. My point simply is this: people sometimes oppose for the sake of opposing, whether it is bad, good or indifferent legislation or a bad, good or indifferent motion. People oppose just for the sake of it to say, "I am the opposition" or "We are the opposition". That is common currency in the House, and that is what gets this place a bad name.

John McCallister: What gets us a bad name is when you try to do it and you do not have the integrity to come out of the Government. You do not have the collective responsibility; you do not have that part that says, "I do not agree with this; I will resign from the Government". That is it. That includes Sinn Féin's position on welfare reform. As the second largest party in the Government, there is a responsibility. We had to send the Finance Minister to get a £100 million loan to stop this thing going into the red. That is not good governance. I appreciate that —

John Dallat: Order, please. Far be it from me to remind the Member that he is drifting somewhat in educational terms.

John McCallister: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful, as ever, for your guidance.
The Assembly should be scrutinising the Bill and scrutinising other legislation, other motions and the work of the Executive branch of government. That is why it is so important to take our time. Having wasted years, we are suddenly faced with doing this in a matter of weeks. I think that that is a matter of huge regret, and we are perhaps not doing the best job. We should all regret that state of affairs very much.

John O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Bhí díospóireacht bhíomhar againn anseo inniu, agus is maith an rud é sin. We have had a lively debate today, and that is a very good thing. It is right that differing views should be heard and that we should debate challenging issues. However, given the inexorable deadline presented by local government reform, it is imperative that we seek consensus and agree quickly to move forward. Consensus will be key to the success of the Bill. It is for that reason that the Bill is drafted in such concise terms. 
I welcome the interest that has been shown on all sides of the House, and I thank those Members who contributed. Many specific points were raised, and I shall address as many of them as possible. I shall, of course, write to Members on any issues that I am unable to cover now.
In her opening remarks as Chair of the Committee, Ms McIlveen posed a number of questions about elements of the Bill. The four community representatives will be appointed through the public appointments process, which will be open and transparent and done in conjunction with the due processes. 
A number of Members raised the question of how the Education Authority is to save £185 million. Indeed, Mr McCallister raised it at the end of his comments. A key component of realising savings will be through the rationalisation of services and structures, for example, ICT, HR and finance systems. In preparation for ESA, significant work has already been undertaken on the harmonisation of those services. That also covers the point about the spend of £17 million in preparation for ESA. Efficiencies realised will be comparable in scale to those expected from ESA, which were estimated at around £185 million over 10 years. That will be the difference between implementing the Education Authority and rebooting the boards and CCMS etc to 2008 levels. This is money that we will not have to spend, providing that the Education Authority is established. 
As expected, fewer staff will be employed in the Education Authority, particularly in management grades, than in the current five boards. Significant reductions in staff have already been made in anticipation of ESA. Many of the savings have, therefore, already been made. It is my expectation that any remaining reductions will be made through voluntary redundancy, retirement and resignations. A full business case is in the process of being finalised, and I will share it with the Education Committee at the earliest possible moment. Members will have access to that full information. 
Ms McIlveen also raised the issue of wider reform of education administration, the consideration of greater and more appropriate delegation to schools and the simplification of education legislation. That is an objective that can be achieved, but I think that it can be achieved in a different Bill. The key to this Bill — it has been said time and time again — is to deal with the structures that are currently before us and reduce those down into the one authority. Once we have that legislation and the confidence of the education sector is reinstated, we could move towards looking at that. Education legislation is very complex, and I think that it needs to be refreshed. A very complex piece of legislation will be needed to bring that forward, and I expect that there will have to be detailed discussions to reach agreement on it. Let us get this Bill over the line, let us restore confidence in the education sector, and then we can move to that. 
As to the appointment of the chief executive, let me put it on the record that I do not believe that "interim" is five, 10 or 15 years. To me, "interim" is up to two years. There was one suggestion of six months, but that is unrealistic. I do not think that candidates would apply for that, and I do not think that any successful candidate would be in position for long enough to make any difference to a board within six months. An interim appointment of around two years is realistic. 
It is not uncommon for the chief executive of a non-departmental public body to be appointed by the sponsoring Department. That is consistent with guidance issued by DFP on the establishment of public bodies. The appointment of the first CEO by the Department is for practical reasons, as the Education Authority will not be established in time to undertake the selection and appointment of the chief executive to be in post in April 2015. Even with accelerated passage, we are still facing challenges over time — I say that also in response to Mr McCallister's points. It is critical for the Education Authority to ensure that the necessary minimum administrative arrangements are in place for 1 April 2015. There are examples of similar practice in the appointment of CEOs for development corporations. One notable example is the appointment of the CEO for the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation. Maybe that is not the best example in the world, but that is recognised practice. 
Another issue raised by Ms McIlveen was that of a controlled sector support body. I urge caution in the days and weeks ahead in tabling amendments to this Bill. This Bill is very finely balanced, and, if we go after elements of ESA that we favoured or go after lobbies that we favour and try to introduce them to the Bill, we are opening a Pandora's box. Once we open it, we will not get it closed again. We will end up in the same mess as we were in with ESA. This is not ESA. Members opposite are quite entitled to lobby for and seek the type of recognition that a number of them sought for the controlled sector support body and different pieces of legislation, but I urge them to think: this is not the legislation to do that in. If we break the balance in this legislation, the hopes and aspirations of many people will falter, and, certainly, any hopes in the short term for a controlled sector support body will be lost, as will the funding for that body etc.
I have had discussions with the controlled sector lobby, and I have set out my proposals and plans to it in writing. I have put in Executive minutes exactly what I read out in the Chamber today about the roles and responsibilities of that body. It is in the minutes of the Executive, and it is now in Hansard. I will also incorporate the roles and responsibilities of that body in DE's corporate plan. So there are a number of factors that give assurances to that body.
I will also table an amendment to the Bill. I have been clear with the controlled sector from day one. I will not name any sector in the Bill, because I think that that upsets the balance and will open up that Pandora's box. The amendment that I propose to table will read:
"The Department may, subject to such conditions a it thinks fit, pay grants to any body which is recognised by the Department as representing the interests of grant-aided schools of a particular description."
That clause will ensure that funding will go to the controlled sector. Indeed, I put it on record in Hansard that, once the Bill moves through Consideration Stage, I will start funding a controlled sector support body to get it up and running. Some considerable pieces of work were carried out, I think, in the last calendar year in relation to that body, and I will rejuvenate it. However, Members, I caution you: we are dealing with very finely balanced legislation; let us not tip it the wrong way. I say that to all Members.
Before I deal with the statutory duties of the authority, let me deal with its membership. Various Members around the Chamber made suggestions about which bodies should be represented on the authority. I believe that the make-up of the authority, as it is currently set out in the Bill, is sufficient and will give it democratic and representative authority across the board. However, if Members table amendments that have the favour of the House in the sense of the various bodies that have been mentioned today — the voluntary grammar sector, the integrated sector and the Irish-medium sector — I will not object. However, again, let us ensure that the balance of the board is not thrown one way or the other and that, whatever numbers we end up with on that board, it is a strategic body. 
Mr Lunn referred to the amendments that he will table on political representation on the board. I will study those closely and go back to why we came up with the formula for the political representation on the board. I am open to persuasion on all matters in relation to representation on the board. However, I emphasise that it is a strategic body, and I hope that the members who join it will not do so simply to represent the interests of their sector but will be there to set the strategic direction of education into the future.
I want to return to the role of the board or the authority — I have to get used to using the term "authority" — later, because Mr McCrea also made interesting comments about it that I want to respond to. 
Mrs Overend said — I paraphrase — that the UUP reacted negatively to the previous Bills. That is correct. That is absolutely correct, and that is not a compliment. Negativity has bogged this process down for several years. As I said, it is a collective responsibility for the failure to get ESA this far. I have my own views about why the ESA Bill failed and who was the original author of that failure, but I think that it is a waste of time —

Mervyn Storey: Go on, name him.

John O'Dowd: It is not you. [Laughter.] You are on the list of accomplices, so you are. It would be a waste of time and would not serve any purpose at this time.
We have failed to agree an ESA Bill; we have brought forward the single authority Bill, which is simple in its make-up, and I believe that we can reach agreement on it. 
Mrs Overend also mentioned the £17 million put in place to prepare for the ESA. I welcome the continued interest of the Social Development Minister and former Education Committee Chair in that matter. However, the reason why the boards were run down and £17 million was invested in establishing the ESA was not some clever ploy to force the ESA through the back door: the ESA was a Programme for Government commitment, not in one Programme for Government but in two. Any responsible Minister who has a Programme for Government commitment has a duty to prepare for it and, indeed, it was always the view in budget deliberations that the Department of Education had the ability to save about £20 million per annum as it prepared for the ESA. So there was a Programme for Government commitment and also budgetary pressures bearing down on us to prepare for the ESA. About 400 staff have left the education boards in preparation for the ESA, and that will hold us in good stead in preparation for the Education Authority. 
I cannot say how much of the £17 million will be directly attributed to work that goes into the Education Authority. That will be for others to investigate at another time. However, a significant amount of money from that work programme will, in my opinion, transfer to the authority to allow it to carry out its work.
I have covered points about additional powers.
Mr Rogers raised a number of points that I want to return to. He talked about the membership of the board and who, in his view, should be on it. As I have said, I am open to persuasion on all those matters. However, I want to say this: the new Education Authority will have to be compliant with the agreements reached under the Good Friday Agreement and with Irish-medium and integrated education legislation. The new authority will work under the schemes of the Department of Education, and therefore, by law, it will have to take into account its legal duties for Irish-medium and integrated education, whether or not those sectors are represented on the board.
Mrs Overend asked me whether I had taken into consideration the Drumragh judgement. I have done so, in the preparation of all my work in recent times and since the judgement. I do not believe that anything that I have done in relation to the Bill does harm to the judgement, although the judgement is not as clearly in favour of one side and against the other as some would like us to believe. However, I take into account the judgement as I carry out my work across many elements of the Department.
As to the question of what happened to the two previous Bills to establish the ESA, I will not go down that road.
 
Mr Lunn and many other Members paid tribute to the staff who have struggled to hold together the current boards and to our school and teaching staff. I join them in paying that tribute. Many heroic measures have been taken by our education and library boards, in particular, in the work that they have carried out over this last number of years. We have a duty to them, as much as anything, in relation to ensuring that we bring forward legislation that gives certainty to education.

Mervyn Storey: I thank the Minister for giving way. I wish to record my gratitude, as former Chair of the Education Committee, to the education and library boards and, in particular, to those senior staff and others on the boards who, over the years, made an invaluable contribution to education. We may not have always agreed; we may have had our differences, and we may have had issues, particularly about the controlled sector and the way in which it was placed. However, that does not diminish the immense work that was done. I welcome the comments by the Minister about that, and I ask him whether he can ensure, in some way, that that recognition can be conveyed to the boards so that they know how much we, the Assembly, appreciate what they have done.

John O'Dowd: He hasn't gone away, you know.
I certainly will do that, and it is only right and proper to do so. In fairness, during the debate, many Members paid tribute to the sterling work carried out by the boards. I will examine ways to mark that, if we get a new Education Authority, of course, and we are all hopeful that we will.
Mr Craig covered support to schools from the boards because of the rundown in preparation for the ill-fated ESA. He wants to know how services will move across and how they will develop. All services will move across, but it is only right and proper that the authority itself decides how those services develop. That programme of work should be carried out in consultation with schools and others, but the authority and its membership carries responsibility for such matters.
What happens to the chief executives of the five ELBs? At present, there is only one substantive chief executive, although those who have stepped into other roles have carried out an excellent job. Once the five ELBs are dissolved or amalgamated — whatever word you want to use — there will be no requirement for the five chief executive posts. Those chief executives are perfectly entitled to apply for any post in the new authority. I suspect that some of them will, and I wish them well. That process will come after employment decisions and the usual employment protocols that will follow through. There will certainly not be five chief executives underneath the new authority when it comes into being.
Mr McCausland referred to a change management strategy, as did Mr Newton in Committee, and to today's gain. A change management programme will be delivered to oversee the transition from five ELBs and their staff commission to a single Education Authority. That will be a large-scale reform programme that will continue to be embedded over a number of years beyond 2015. It is anticipated that it will take some time to arrive at a steady state following the creation of the new authority.
A programme management board will identify and oversee the key work strands necessary to deliver the Education Authority. Early scoping has indicated that those may include human resources, legislation, equality and communications, governance arrangements, operations and services, finance and dissolution, and the establishment of a controlled sectoral support body. I want the controlled sectoral support body to be up and functioning by 1 April 2015 at the latest, and there will be continued support for that body afterwards. A change programme strategy will be in place, which will evolve as time moves forward, and it is significant work.
Mr Kinahan questioned why the Department of Education should appoint the chair, and he wanted to be reassured that the appointment of the chair, if carried out by the Department, would be open and transparent. With such major strategic government bodies, it is normal practice for the sponsoring Department to appoint the chair. However, that appointment must take place in line with the public appointments process, so it has to be an open and transparent process. It will be advertised and will be quite a significant appointment, because that person will be in charge of an authority that, in one way or another, has responsibility for a budget of around £1·8 billion. We will be looking for a significant figure in the process. The post will be widely advertised, job descriptions etc will be put in place, and the usual public appointments process will kick in.
Mr Kinahan also raised issues relating to the interim chief executive, which I have covered. A maximum of two years is interim. That gives a person the opportunity to go in, establish the board and steady the authority, and the authority then has a period to employ a new chief executive.
Mr Newton covered a wide range of areas. He also congratulated me at one point, which I would like to read twice in the Hansard report. He expressed concerns about the area-planning process and used a number of examples. He gave one example of the process working — Dundonald — although he suggested that that was down to the intervention of the Minister. The Minister always has a role in area planning. He referred to the Newtownbreda/Knockbreda judicial review, although he did not refer to the fact that the board won that and was found to have acted properly.
Victoria Park Primary School was mentioned. Lessons have to be learned about the size of that school and how we came to that figure, but it worked out OK in the end.
Area planning will have to continue. Clearly, the new authority will carry out a role, and that will be complemented by the controlled schools sectoral support body, which will also join that overarching group. Area planning is a difficult process. The closure or amalgamation of schools is never easy. When a board or authority has to come to a decision about moving to that process, there needs to be consultation, and it needs to be carried out very carefully. People need to feel valued. You need to ensure that their views are heard, and then a decision has to be made on the future of a school or group of schools. The authority will play a major role in that.
I may have missed some Members' comments. My officials will go through the Hansard report, and, if other points require clarity or a response, I will provide that.
I want to refer to Mr McCrea's commentary. I assume that he was referring to the Hansard report of the Education Committee and my comments to that Committee. I am paraphrasing, but he referred to me saying that the education body would discuss the future direction of education. I see that Mr McCrea has left. I accept that I am paraphrasing, but he appeared to have concerns about that statement. Why would an education authority not discuss the future direction of education? Of course it should. The people on the authority will be key in the delivery of day-to-day education and the education strategy.
Anyone concerned that the body will discuss the future direction of travel in education can be comforted by this: the body will have no legislative authority to change that direction. The legislative authority for that rests with the Assembly, so it is vital that I as Minister, my Department and the Assembly listen very carefully to the views of any future education authority. We should not be concerned that we are vesting powers in the authority that, in some way, will allow it to take decisions that are, quite properly, decisions for the Assembly. There should be no concerns about that. 
I think that I have covered all the points. I emphasise again that this is not ESA. I think that it was the Chair of the Committee who said that it was not ESA lite, so let us not make it ESA lite. Let us not create ESA in the next couple of weeks. We could not get agreement on ESA over seven years, and we will not get agreement on ESA in the next seven weeks, so I urge Members across the House to be conscious that, when tabling amendments, as is their right and entitlement, they do so in the spirit that this is minimalist legislation. We acknowledge that many sectors, quite rightly, lobby us as elected representatives and seek changes to legislation. I strongly urge Members to accept the argument that this is not the legislation in which to do that. That does not in any way deny you your right or entitlement to campaign and, at a future date, to introduce new legislation or make changes to legislation, but I urge Members not to amend the Bill out of existence.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Education Bill [NIA 38/11-16] be agreed.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker.]

Adjournment

Heart Surgery for Children: Upper Bann

John Dallat: The proposer of the topic will have 15 minutes, and all other Members who wish to speak will have approximately seven minutes.

Joanne Dobson: The reason why this is such an important debate is that it is the first time that the current Minister will speak on this issue in the Chamber. 
Hold on, Mr Deputy Speaker. That was from the speech that I had planned to give, until this morning's impromptu statement from the Minister. Nevertheless, I would have thought that the previous Minister could have shown respect to the House and to the many families who are worried sick about the issue by at least making a formal statement on it. Alas, it was not to be.
To quote the new Minister:
"It is one of the most complicated and controversial issues on my desk at the minute ... I have time to take a long, cold look at it."
Taking a long, cold look at things seems to be something that Stormont is all too familiar with. Parents and their children looking in from the outside can be forgiven for wondering when the long, cold looks will end and the action start. Those are the same parents whom the Minister spoke about earlier, saying that it is a bitter pill for them to swallow — bitter indeed. Meanwhile, those same parents have the worry — the very real, sickening worry — for their children's health and life.
As I and everyone else know only too well, health is an issue that leaves no home untouched. However, the issue of children's cardiac services is especially emotive, given the age of many of the young people involved and the sheer challenges that they are expected to overcome, often in the first few weeks of their life, and, for too many young children, in the weeks, months and years that lie ahead. There are parents across Upper Bann — I know that the Minister has already met several of them because he mentioned it in the House this morning — for whom the issue is so very dear. It is for those parents and their children that I have secured this Adjournment debate. They and other parents have made lengthy trips to this Building over the past three years, to be met with little more than hollow promises, followed by reports, reviews and consultations.
The business of government grinds slowly — far too slowly — when it comes to protecting the needs of some of the most vulnerable children in our society and addressing the very real fears of their families. I do not blame the current Minister for the actions of his predecessor, and I welcome his assurance to my colleague Robin Swann this morning that he will take a deep personal interest in the issue. Nevertheless, I reiterate my disappointment and that of my party colleagues, as well as that of many other people, at the manner in which it was revealed that the international review group has found that retaining children's surgical cardiac services in Belfast is unsustainable. 
The manner in which that information was revealed — through a clearly planted question on the day that the previous Minister knew that he was being sacked — showed little regard for the concerns of the families or the seriousness of the issue. In addition, the Minister would have known that, by making the announcement in the manner in which he did, it would have only been prolonging the agony for those families. He would have known that it would be weeks before the report would be published in full.
My party still wants to see services retained in Belfast. We believe that, with the right level of dedication, the Minister and his Department would be able to hold on to the required expertise. The number of children affected may be relatively small, but, in my opinion, that is something to be pleased about rather than used to cast doubt. Parents in Upper Bann hold many of the same concerns. If the findings that Edwin Poots previously revealed are acted on, what provision, for instance, will be put in place to ensure that all patients, including those needing urgent emergency treatment, will receive care in a safe and time-critical fashion? Although Upper Bann is closer to Dublin than some parts of Northern Ireland are, it is most likely that, in an emergency, families will still have to travel first to Belfast to get the diagnosis before travelling onwards if surgery or emergency interventions are no longer available there.
Another issue that parents are concerned about locally is whether Northern Ireland's cardiology skills and the associated services will be maintained and developed. The prospect of losing children's heart surgery could have a very detrimental impact on the remaining service. Specifically, Minister, when will the £1 million promised by John Compton last year for paediatric cardiology services be delivered? Northern Ireland is at the forefront in many areas of paediatric cardiology, such as telemedicine, research and training. I know that you will share my belief that it is critical that those are further developed.
As I draw my remarks to a conclusion, I will raise with the Minister one more issue that would be of direct benefit to parents in Upper Bann. In March, the Assembly debated the issue of pulse oximetry screening for newborns. In fact, the Minister participated in the debate. He said:
"this is a simple, cheap and non-invasive test that could have significant results for children born with congenital heart disease." — [Official Report, Vol 92, No 5, p51, col 1].
Minister, will you now please bring forward that test? As we know, the earlier that something is detected, often, the easier it is to address. Children's cardiac services is one of the most challenging issues facing the Minister. He needs to take cognisance of the medical advice being offered to him and find a way of balancing that with the wishes of the clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland. 
The Minister will soon be making a very difficult decision. He knows my views and those of my party. I know that, after his meeting yesterday and today's debate, he will at least know the views of the parents of Upper Bann.

Sydney Anderson: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I commend Mrs Dobson for bringing this important, emotive and sensitive issue to the House. It has relevance, of course, to not only Upper Bann but right across the country. 
Cardiac services for children are crucial, and their needs and quality of care must at all times be a top priority. The debate is timely by complete coincidence: it takes place on the same day as the new Health Minister presented his statement to the House on proposals for paediatric congenital cardiac services. In that sense, as Mr Wells said earlier, many of the issues that we debate this evening will probably have been considered this morning.
The whole issue of children's heart disease is something that I have taken a close interest in for a considerable time. Along with my colleagues David Simpson MP and Stephen Moutray MLA, I have worked with a number of families right across Upper Bann. Therefore, I am well aware of the strength of feeling and emotion around this very complex issue. I pay tribute to the work of the Children's Heartbeat Trust charity for the very special work it carries out daily. I have only to look at the McKee, Greenaway and Flaherty families from my constituency to see the dedication and commitment to fighting for a solution to service provision for those very special children. Those families have inspired many across Upper Bann, and they have helped to cast much light on this important topic. Charities and support groups such as the Children's Heartbeat Trust can also be a real help and encouragement to families whose children have serious heart problems.
I also pay great tribute to the Clark Clinic in the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children for the excellent work it does. Its dedication and skills have been highlighted by the very emotional personal stories that I have heard from families. The life-saving specialist work it undertakes must be commended. 
I spoke to the families as recently as yesterday, and I place on record their sincere thanks to all involved in the care of their beloved children, not least the former Health Minister, Edwin Poots, who made himself available at all times and was a great listening ear.

Joanne Dobson: I thank the Member for giving way. I am loathe to say that it was a coincidence; I think that I will table more Adjournment debates if that is the impact they have, but anyway. Does the Member share my hope that, with the change in Minister, good news will finally be delivered to the families you spoke of? We both know them and hold them very close to our hearts. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to deliver good news to the children and their families.

Sydney Anderson: I have no doubt that the past Minister did, and the present Minister will, deliver as much of a first-class service as is practically possible. I know that Edwin Poots sent emails to some of those families with personal comments in them, he took that great an interest in the health of those kids. I spoke to those families, and they appreciated the efforts that Edwin had gone to to try to get it sorted out. I have every confidence that the Health Minister in place now will carry on in the same mode.
The new Minister and his predecessor have rightly said that they do not want a second-class service for parents and children in Northern Ireland. Families that I have met — two of them were at the meeting with the Minister yesterday — have raised a number of concerns. I trust that the Minister will take those issues that were noted yesterday on board when the final arrangements are made.
It is crucial that high standards of care are maintained. I know that that was certainly the aim and objective of the international working group, chaired by Dr John Mayer from Boston Children's Hospital, which explored all options, not only talking to surgeons and medical staff but consulting widely with families. I place on record my sincere thanks to him for also doing that. 
Families with vulnerable children must be placed at the centre of any decision-making process in order to achieve the highest standard of care and the best possible outcomes. That includes being able to offer the highest-skilled doctors, nurses and support staff possible. With that in mind, I welcome the inclusion of a robust family advisory group in the international working group's recommendations. The increased involvement of parents is crucial. Families want to see better liaison between them and the medical staff and more hands-on support in what is already an anxious time for anyone with a young child who suffers from congenital heart defects. 
The report also highlights the huge benefits of a highly specialised team that would be developed between our health service and the Republic of Ireland's health service in order to maximise the level of provision we can give to our most vulnerable children and young people.
I commend the work of the Children's Heartbeat Trust across Northern Ireland in providing practical and personal support to those going through very anxious and difficult times with their children. I encourage it to keep up that good work. I would also like to thank Dr John Mayer and the international working group along with the previous Minister Edwin Poots and our current Health Minister, Jim Wells. In particular, I want to pay a special tribute to the ever-dedicated families. I cannot even begin to imagine what they go through every day. They have truly been inspirational throughout this long journey.
In closing, I trust that, as we move forward, the final arrangements will provide the highest standard of care for our children who suffer from congenital heart disease. I also hope and pray that proper and adequate support is given to the families of those children. I look forward to the Minister's comments later in the debate.

John O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Paediatric cardiac care, quite understandably, is a very emotive issue, and I do not envy Mr Wells in his task of dealing with the matter, nor did I envy his predecessor Mr Poots. 
The issue has become central in political and media life because of the determination and dignity portrayed by parents of young children with heart defects. They have campaigned, quite understandably, for the retention of surgery in Belfast. The staff and surgeons in Belfast have given them both medical treatment and personal treatment to the highest levels over many years, and they deserve to be commended for that.
However, the realities of modern medicine have come to bear on the issue. The realities of modern medicine dictate many things. They dictate safety at the very core of delivery. I can understand parents wishing the service to be accessible and to be able to travel to Belfast for care, especially given the care that is received there, but when an international body of highly respected medical professionals tells you that, through no fault of anyone, in fairness — it is not a funding issue; it is not a reduction of services issue; it is not about cuts; it is no one's fault — that service can no longer continue safely, then, quite rightly, the Health Minister and everyone else have to sit up and listen.

Jim Wells: Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd: Yes.

Jim Wells: Will the Member accept that this was the fourth report recommending the same policy change and that I was faced with a situation in which four totally different bodies, coming from totally different angles, had all reached the same conclusion, which is that we have to concentrate on Crumlin hospital and that therefore to do anything else would be totally negligent?

John O'Dowd: Yes. I spent several years as the party's health spokesperson. Now, it was in an era when we were all in opposition. There were direct rule Ministers here. You could call, lobby and demand for everything because there was no expense or responsibility connected to it. We are now in a different role. Through that period as health spokesperson, I did learn that, quite rightly, safety comes first. Medical experts will not go beyond that safety line. 
The Minister is right that there have been four reports now telling him that these services should be delivered on an all-island basis. This is not a political issue. It is not about partition. It is nothing to do with anything other than the provision of safe, modern cardiac care to young children. That is what is at the centre of it. 
I note that what is being proposed is going out to consultation; if I understood the Minister's statement this morning, there will be further consultation on this matter. There is a further opportunity. Key to this is to ensure that the parents, who have acted with such dignity throughout this time, are kept informed of every detail of the proposal, that clarity is given to them when it is required and that they are given to understand every aspect of the proposal moving forward with regard to which services will continue to be provided in Belfast, the surgery services that will be provided in Dublin, how those centres will be accessible to them as parents and family members and how they will be accommodated in those centres. There needs to be assurance that the centre that is being talked about in Dublin has the resources and facilities to carry out services —

Joanne Dobson: Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd: I will in just one second. There needs to be assurance that the centre has the resources and facilities to carry out the additional work that will come its way.

Joanne Dobson: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree with me that very little clarity has been given to parents over the past three years and that there has been only false hope?

John O'Dowd: I will not get into a political wrangle about this. I have observed the issue as a Minister and as a constituency MLA. I have been lobbied by parents. I have noted their campaign, both at personal and public level. I have seen the efforts of the previous Health Minister on the matter. 
I suspect that there is some dissatisfaction among some parents that the decision has gone this way. But unless there is a medical reason not to follow the report, what we have to do now — I will wind up on this point — is ensure that the parents are given every shred of information they require on how this service will be rolled out and developed and that clarity is given. Where additional information or services are required, we have to fall in behind that and support that as well. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Dolores Kelly: I join others in commending Mrs Dobson for securing the Adjournment debate. I think that she is right to note the coincidence of the statement and the Adjournment debate — nonetheless, whatever it takes to get the job done. 
I think that we are all agreed that we want to work in the best interests of all our constituents. As Mr Anderson said, it is not just about children in Upper Bann; it is about children right across the North and their parents in particular. I join others in commending the parents and families and those who have lobbied so hard for so long. It is necessary that we have certainty and clarity on the issues and recommendations that are contained in the reports. 
I know from experience that it is not just the parents of children who are currently ill but parents who have had the experience of having their children treated in Belfast who feel so passionately about the retention of services. I want to commend them for keeping with it and assisting those who have come after them. It is also right that we place on record, as the report does, that the strength and quality of the cardiology services that are provided in Belfast are second to none. The change being made is nothing to do with them in relation to the service. I think that it was Mr O'Dowd who said that it is about the safety and viability of the service. 
We in the SDLP welcome today's announcement that child cardiac services will become part of an all-island initiative. We see it as a step in the right direction to providing clarity and certainty for parents and families. For too long, we were left in a state of limbo, not knowing whether or not children would have to continue to travel to England. It is much more satisfactory that they have much easier access, and hopefully less costly access, to services in Dublin. 
I think I am right in saying that the consultation period is 12 weeks but the service level agreement with Dublin ends in 10 weeks. Perhaps the Minister will address the gap, of two weeks or whatever number of weeks, that might emerge as a consequence of the consultation and whether or not the current service level agreement will be extended. I see reference to that as one of the issues raised in today's media. 
Today's report advances 14 recommendations, addressing key issues that would facilitate the transition of the service, including issues of transport, enhancing clinical services, taking on board families' concerns and implementing measures to deal with urgent emergency care. Some issues remain. Earlier today, the Minister pointed out the interdependency of the 14 recommendations, where full agreement across the board is required. I understand very clearly that we are very much in the early stages and there has yet to be full agreement and commitment on the resource timelines and service integration requirements by both Health Ministers and their respective Departments. I trust that Mr Wells has a good relationship with the Health Minister in the South and that they can very quickly come to a conclusion to inform parents. 
At the end of the day, communication will be key. When you are ill, you do not really care where the service is, so long as you can get it — and get it when you need it, it is a good service and it has a good outcome for you or your loved one. I believe that that is the ambition of the provision of children's cardiac services and one that I hope will be at the centre of deliberations on the provision of services. 
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is very difficult at the end of such a debate to add anything new, so I will finish by recognising that this has been doing the rounds for quite a long time. Members are quite right to point out that it is the fourth such report that has come to the same conclusion. I hope that the announcement is given a fair wind in relation to the consultation, and that we see an enhanced service provision and clarity given to families, because they have enough worry and anxiety dealing with a child who is sick, without having to worry about all the ancillary problems around transport, accommodation and accessibility.

Robin Swann: I know that the Adjournment debate is about Upper Bann, but, having declared the interest already, I think that most Members are fully aware of our personal condition, and I want to tie it in with tonight's Adjournment debate. 
At less than 24 hours old, my son Evan was transferred from the maternity ward to the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). If any of you have been in the children's hospital in Belfast, you will know that, just outside the PICU, there is a parent waiting room. I went in there, because my wife had just given birth and was not allowed to travel, and the first people I met were Julie Flaherty and her husband, Wayne. The support that those two individuals gave my wife and me through those first few hours and days, while Evan was in the PICU along with their son Jake, gave us the confidence and understanding that the surgery and support that Evan would receive in the unit would be second to none. 
Mr Deputy Speaker, Jake did not survive to see the debate today. He passed away over a year ago now. However, Julie and Wayne, in memory of their son, keep this fight alive in their hearts, because they know the necessity of being able to support not just parents but children in an excellent facility in Belfast. From my involvement in this issue, it has not been about numbers. Unfortunately, the Safe and Sustainable review created the magical figure of 400, which nobody could stand over afterwards. The argument has been put forward that the practice has not been safe and that the surgeons have not been there. I appreciate what John said about the advancements in medicine. Nobody is arguing against their child receiving the proper medical service where it is available. The continual call from parents is to be close to home, to be supported close to home and to have that family circle. Dublin is a better alternative than Birmingham and Evelina. I do not think that anybody in this House will argue against that. Belfast is a better alternative. 
A number of parents have raised queries in regard to the service level agreement. Mrs Kelly has already raised it, and I raised it this morning in Question Time. It comes to an end in 10 weeks' time at the end of December.

Jim Wells: Will the Member give way?

Robin Swann: Yes.

Jim Wells: Mrs Kelly raised the same point. The service level agreement will be continued past the end of the consultation period. There will be no change, no hiatus or two-week gap. It will just continue on well past the consultation period because, remember, we will still need time to look at the consultation responses. So, that will not cause any problems.

Robin Swann: I thank the Minister for his clarification. Will the service level agreement, which allows the Dublin surgeon to come to Belfast to perform those surgeries, continue for the 18-month period before we transfer our children's cardiac surgery to Dublin? Part of the frustration here, and it is a small line in his statement this morning, is that, from December 2014, more children will transfer to England for surgery. We are looking for the continuation of the small number of surgeries that have already taken place in Belfast, should it be catherisations or interventions. 
During the 18-month period when we are sending more of our children to England, what will happen to our anaesthetists, our PICU nurses and all the supportive care workers who support those children and families? In the recommendations, I saw that, in 18 months' time, there will be a transfer of support workers. However, if they are not given the ability to keep their skills upgraded in the 18-month intervention period, there could be a complete deskilling of our staff in Belfast. 
I do not think that we are under any illusion that surgery will miraculously appear back in Belfast; the parents are realistic about that. However, we want the best provision for our children. Tonight, even Dr Michael McBride talked about the period of uncertainty that there will be while this is all worked out. That is where the frustration comes in.
The point that I raised this morning about the individual care pathway for each child will give reassurance, if it can be established. That is a piece of work that should be done and can be done. Like Mr Anderson, I want to pay tribute to the parents who have fought this fight. Mr O'Dowd and my party colleague Jo-Anne Dobson acknowledged that it has been a noble, decent, clean campaign. It is something that they believed in, and they wanted the right outworkings. There has been no political point-scoring in it. It has been for the good of their children to receive a first-class service. There is no argument about that in any shape or form. That is what everybody wants, but it is the travelling and the support that has to be put in place. The establishment of that individual care pathway will go a long way to resolving a lot of those issues.
In finishing, there is an urban myth that, for the children's hospital to increase its ability to take the Northern Ireland patients in 18 months' time, Minister Varadkar is looking at a newbuild children's hospital.
It is acknowledged in the Mayer report that there are problems with planning for that hospital in Dublin. A site has not been secured for the new children's hospital. If a new hospital in Dublin cannot be built to take our children in 18 months' time, what reassurances do we have beyond the recommendations and the hope to be there in 18 months' time? Without the upgrading of the facility, without those PICU beds, which are already at over 90% occupancy with the Republic's own children before we add an additional 250 surgeries a year, and without clarity on where the new build will be, how can we put our faith in it happening 18 months down the line? That is the question. There is no point scoring or trying to catch a Minister out here. It is parents wanting to know the answers to their detailed questions.
Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me, a Member for North Antrim, to take part in this Adjournment debate. Going back to my initial point, I can honestly say that, without the support that parents from Upper Bann, especially Julie and Wayne Flaherty, gave us at the start, we would have found our direction of travel in what we had to go through an awful lot harder.

Jim Wells: First, I thank Mrs Dobson, a Member for Upper Bann, for securing the debate. This is not a question of right or wrong; it is a question of two rights. It is not a black-and-white argument. When I first came to the issue, I thought that it would be very attractive to retain services in Belfast. However, I think that we need to look at some cold, hard statistics.
In 2011-12, there were a total of 140 surgical procedures involving children from Northern Ireland. Of those, 97 were carried out in Northern Ireland, 13 were carried out in Dublin, and 40 were carried out in England. In 2012-13, 69 were carried out in Northern Ireland, 36 were carried out in the Republic, and 37 were carried out in England, a total of —

Robin Swann: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Wells: Certainly.

Robin Swann: Minister, I appreciate your cold, hard statistics. I will point out that Evan William-Robert Swann, my son, is more than a cold, hard statistic. You said that this is not black and white. Please do not make the argument here tonight using statistics. Your predecessor was able to support the case. You have more in your speech here tonight than cold, hard statistics. For the families out there, I ask you to advance more than that argument.

Jim Wells: Yes indeed, there is much more to my speech than cold, hard statistics. The Member is across the statistics. He has quite rightly taken a deep personal interest in the issue. However, it is only when you see where the statistics are taking us that you realise why we are in the position that we are in. Hopefully, none of this is revealing any personal information about any patient.
The reality is that, in the first five months of this year, only 12 procedures were undertaken in Northern Ireland, with four in Dublin and 58 in England. The total so far is 74. The reason why I am making that point is that all the expertise is telling me that we need at least 400 procedures in order to have a safe, sustainable service for our children, Unfortunately, even in the best year, we had 159 procedures, which is a long, long way short of 400. Those are the realities that we are facing. Indeed, in some years, the entire island of Ireland has just about enough procedures for a safe and sustainable service.
My difficulty, which I mentioned to Mr O'Dowd, is that I have had four separate reports by four separate bodies telling me that this is not safe. What do I do with my GCSE biology? Do I say that I know better, or do I listen to world authorities from places like Harvard and to the Chief Medical Officer, who tell me that we cannot continue in the way that we are going, and we have to change? Which advice do I take? I am afraid that I am left in an extremely difficult position.
Frankly, it is a decision that I did not want to make. I would love to have come here this morning, this afternoon and this evening — the topic has been raised three times — and said that we have the numbers, the resources and the clinicians to run a full, sustainable service in Belfast. Nothing would have made me happier. However, the obvious fact is that everyone who looked at the issue has said that it just cannot be done. The honourable Member welcomed the international working group led by Dr Mayer and accepted that he is one of the world authorities on the issue. He works in Massachusetts, where he deals with this very issue of smaller congenital cardiac units, and he looked at this. The Member will see from the report, which I am certain that he has had a chance to look at briefly, that Dr Mayer is absolutely emphatic that we just cannot continue with our current model. There are all sorts of reasons for that, not just numbers. We cannot attract and retain the specialist surgeons that we will need —

Joanne Dobson: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is the Minister saying that, if more children in Northern Ireland had heart problems, he would be forced to deliver the surgery?

Jim Wells: I hate to mention statistics, because we are dealing with human beings — passionate, dedicated parents — but the demographers tell us that Northern Ireland will never have a sufficient number of children to guarantee the sustainability of the service and attract clinicians. The problem that we have is that these specialists can move freely across the world. We are having difficulty attracting and retaining surgeons in many fields in Northern Ireland because of our size. It would not matter if I committed to the Clark clinic and surgery in Belfast. If I cannot attract and retain the expertise that the trusts and I need to continue this surgery, we cannot provide the best service for our children in Northern Ireland. That leaves us with two choices: to send all of our children to England, to Birmingham or London; or to concentrate on an all-island service at a location that I realise will cause considerable difficulties but which I think is preferable, as Mr Swann said, to having that service in England.
There is only a single service in the Irish Republic at the moment. Babies from such places as Kerry, Sligo and Waterford already travel longer distances than children from Northern Ireland would be expected to travel for the same service. I hate mentioning statistics, but the outcomes tell me that this is a safer model than the one that we have.
I accept that all sorts of allegations were made this morning that the coincidence of events happening today was a chance to stymie Mrs Dobson's debate. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have to work very closely with the authorities in the Irish Republic and Minister Leo Varadkar. As it happens, he is new to office and I am new to office. The dates on which we came into office are not that far apart. It has been difficult, in that situation, to get agreement on when the report would be published. We could not do a solo run. This is a joint approach by the two Governments, my Department and the HSE in the Irish Republic. We could not go on our own. I think that Mr Poots felt duty-bound to give some indication, but he was not in a position to publish the report — he could not. One of my first decisions was to issue a written statement to tell the public about the direction of travel, but we were not in a position, until now, to publish the report. That was not an attempt to undermine Mrs Dobson's debate, but I appreciate that she may have felt that it was.
We have the report, and it is emphatic and clear. No one has attempted to say that the Mayer report does not point us in this direction. The statistics, unfortunately, tell us that there is only one route that we can take. I hope that I outlined this morning that we intend to build in safeguards to make absolutely certain that the transition is made without affecting the care of our very vulnerable and needy children. I have also said that there will be structures in place to make certain that the wishes of parents, North and South, are fully considered as we set up the new service. That has to be done. I, personally, intend to pledge myself to ensuring that that happens.
On the first Saturday after my appointment, I attended, with Mrs Dobson, a very moving event in Banbridge. I must say that I found that a difficult event. I met parents who had given their lives to looking after terribly vulnerable, ill young children. I met the parents of Grace McKee at that event, and I met them yesterday. I have nothing but admiration for these people and what they are doing. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that all of their experience at the coalface is taken into account and that we make certain that the move to Dublin, which looks likely to occur, gives rise to as few problems and practical difficulties as possible.
I must say that I am fully aware of the deep concerns felt by Members, patients and their families. I can place myself in your shoes, and I suspect that, if I were in your position, I would probably be saying the same. I have to take a decision in the Chamber that is best for all the children of Northern Ireland. Although I am a unionist and want to retain services in the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland, I have to say that I am left with no other option. My predecessor Edwin Poots, whom I have the highest regard for, wanted to publish the report as soon as possible, but we reached the situation where joint statements were made this morning.
As I said, I have experience of meeting many of the families, and I am well aware of their views. They also made representations to me in my former position as Deputy Chair of the Health Committee. I do not want to repeat the debate that we had this morning. I made the oral statement about the international working group's proposed model and the way forward. However, I wish to restate that I am particularly pleased about the strong voice that it gives to families' representatives on both the governance vehicle and on the family advisory group. I have met many of these parents, and not only are they deeply caring and loving — their children are very fortunate to have such wonderful parents — but they are also very articulate. I have no doubt that, if we get this wrong, they will be beating on my door to tell us that that has happened. Therefore, they have a strong voice, and we want to utilise that. We believe that these proposals, if implemented, will empower the families in shaping the future service in a way that they could never have envisaged before. It is something that is completely new.
I have listened to the speeches made by Members this evening and will respond to some of the points that have been raised. Mrs Dobson was her usual articulate self, and she raised a number of points, which I want to deal with. First, recommendation 6 of the working group report is clear that there is a need to expand and upgrade the links between the Republic of Ireland and Belfast in the field of paediatric cardiology and to provide ongoing information and technological support. It specifically states that IT be targeted, and it is the view of the IWG that infrastructure to support remote acquisition of radiographic images already exists and that there is a significant benefit to be had from utilisation of that infrastructure. That will be a key element in the model that is being taken forward.
Several Members raised the issue of the 18 months, and I hope that I have already indicated that the service level agreement will continue. There is no intention of having any falling off the cliff edge as far as any of the service delivery is concerned. I am fully aware of the risks surrounding the 18-month period and how those skills will be implemented during it. It is essential that, during the transition, the skills be maintained, and my Department will work very closely with the commissioners in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland during that period. For example, we envisage that Belfast cardiologists will carry out interventional procedures in Dublin as early as possible in the new year.
Remember that some of the gentlemen and ladies who are the experts in this field will simply be carrying on the same work only in a different location. Remember that all those specialists have the same high level of training and work together. There is not any form of closed shop between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic in the field. Specialist paediatric cardiology skills will be retained and strengthened in Northern Ireland. I want to go further and say that that strengthening will make Belfast a centre of excellence for cardiology. I have asked the Health and Social Care Board to make investment proposals to secure that and strengthen the regional cardiac network at the same time. That will secure the specialist skills available in Belfast as we go forward to a single-service model. I am happy to reiterate my Department's commitment to investing in the service. One Member raised the issue —

John Dallat: Order. You will be happy to know, Minister, that you have gone three minutes over your time. I will allow you to finish, because it is important.

Jim Wells: Mr Deputy Speaker, you have been very generous.
Therefore, the commitment to the additional million pounds stands, and my door is open to anybody in the Chamber or any group that requires further clarification of the route on which we are travelling.
Adjourned at 7.45 pm.